receive it when God shall reveal it to them How far this may excuse not the crime but their persons from formall Schisme either a toto or a tanto I determine not but leave them to stand or fall before their own Master But though these Protestants were worthy of this contumely yet surely the Romanists are no fit persons to object it whose opiniastrety did hinder an uniform Reformation of the western Church Who did first invest Presbyters with Episcopall Jurisdiction and the power of ordeining and confirming but the Court of Rome by their commissions and delegations for avaritious ends And could they think that the world would beleeve that necessity is not as strong and effectuall a dispensation as their mercicinary Buls It is not at all materiall whether Episcopacy and Priesthood be two distinct Oâ—ders or distinct degrees of the same Order the one subordinate to the other whether Episcopal ordination doe introduce a new Character or extend the old For it is generally confessed by both parties Protestants and Roman Catholicks that the same power and authority is necessary to the extensioâ— of a Character or grace given by ordination which is required to the institution of a Sacrament that is not humane but divine These avaritious practises of that Court though it be not commonly observed were the first source of these present controversies about Episcopacy and ecclesiasticall Discipline which doe now so much disturb the peace of the Church The second fault which he imputeth to me is That I endeavor to clear the English Church from Schisme only in relation to the Church of Rome not to all other Churches It was altogether needless to have troubled his own head or his Readers with this For first he esteems none of all those Churches to be true Churches but a Mass of Monsters an Hydra of many heads or so many Packs of Hereticks and Schismaticks making the Roman Church and the Catholick Church to be Convertibles Secondly it had not only been vain but a sign of guilt to make a defence before we were accused None of those Churches nor any body else that ever I heard of hath accused us for deserting them before R. C. and he hath received his answer If it had been needfull the Church of Rome had saved us that labour by excommunicating them before hand I only wish more intelligence between us and them My third fault is That I endeavour principally to justifie our separation from the Roman Church for the personall faults of Popes And my fourth fault is That I justifie our separation from the Court of Rome for their evill manners That this is not lawfull to doe he proves by sundry authorities and arguments I think the rather because no man denyes it or doubts of it or because he would insinuate to his Reader that we doe deny it If he had pleased he might have contracted these two faults into one The Pope and his Court make but one consistory and personall faults and evill manners are the same thing It had been needfull to have joyned them together to give them a little more weight for being twisted they weigh not half a graine First I deny that we hold personal faults or evil manners a sufficient cause of separation Secondly that separation which was made was made by themselves not by us Thirdly I deny that the Pope or Court of Rome ever had right to any Jurisdiction over us And if they ever had any pretence of right we had other manner of grounds for separation than evill manners As new Articles of faith obtruding of idolatrous superstitions and sinfull duties gross usurpation of the rights of the soveraign Prince and all orders and degrees of Subjects the overthrow or endangering of the publick peace and tranquillity of the Kingdome unlawfull oaths contrary to our allegiance to our King contrary to that duty which all Christians doe owe to generall Councells and lastly the Popes quitting of his Patriarchall power Yet by his leave tyranny and oppression and rapine are somewhat more than personall faults and may be just grounds to Princes and Common-wealths to substract obedience untill there be a reformation of exorbitant abuses Some personall faults as Simony aud Schism may give just occasion to Christians to separate from pretended Popes But there are other faults inherent in the Office of the Pope not his Episcopall Office which was instituted by Christ or his Apostles nor his Patriarchall Office which was instituted by the Church but his pretended Monarchicall Office whereby he hath usurped a power paramount over the highest Tribunall of the Church that is a generall Councell whereof more shall be said in due place These faults give just cause to a generall Councell to separate the Popes themselves and to take away their domineering Courts or to a soveraign Prince with a Nâ—tionall Councell to shake off their tyrannicall Yoke CHAP. 2. Concerning the stating of the Question IN stating the Question I observed this Method first to shew what Ecclesiasticall Separations were not Schismaticall As first those Separations which proceed out of a sudden passionate heat without attempting to make any parties as those between St. Paul and Barnabas St. Hierome and Ruffinus St. Chrysostome and Epiphanius Secondly premeditated clashings of Bishops or Churches long maintained if they forbear to censure one another and be ready to submit to the determination of a generall Councell are not schismaticall as those between the Roman and African Bishops about appeals and rebaptization Thirdly where just cause of separation is given for there the Separaters are innocent and they who give the cause are Schismaticks Fourthly separation from an erroneous Church or Pastor in their errors Of all these and their proofs R C. takes no notice at all but passeth silently by them without either granting denying or distinguishing The first Exception that he takes is against my two supposed definitions of Schisme the former is Schisme is a criminous scissure rent or division in the Church an ecclesiasticall sedition like to a mutiny in an Army or a faction in a Sate The second meer Schisme is a culpable rupture or breach of the Catholick Communion And to supply my defect he promiseth a better definition of his own True Schisme is a voluntary division in some substantiall part of the true Church Really I doe not wonder if my definitions be not complete I doe not take my self to have so happy a vein that all that I utter should be a definition I did not hold it needfull nor had any purpose to define Schisme but only to explane it which my very words might have taught him Schisme signifies a criminous scissure not is but signifies And those two similitudes added to the foot of my pretended definition like a mutiny in an Army or faction in a State Similitudes are apt to illustrate but not to define The definition and the thing defined are ever the same Those
shew that the Britannick Churches were free from all forrein jurisdiction for the first six hundred yeers and so ought to continue For the clearing of which point I shewed that there was a parity of power among the Apostles And that the Sovereignty did not rest in any single Apostle but in the Apostolicall college I shewed that in the age of the Apostles and the age next succeeding the highest Order in the Church under the Apostles were nationall Protarchs or Patriarchs And by what means and upon what grounds in after ages some of these Patriarchs came to be exalted above the rest and to obscure their fellowes But each of these within their own Patriarchates did challenge a jurisdiction independent upon any single Superior As might be made clear by many instances when Athanasius and Paulus procured the Letters of Pope Iulius for their restitution I meddle not with the merits of the cause the Bishops of the East took the reprehension of Iulius as a contumely they called a Councell at Antioch they accused Iulius sharply and shewed that he had nothing to doe to contradict them more then they did contradict him when he thrust Novatus out of the Church Neither did the great Protopatriarchs challeng this independency only but other lesser Patriarchs also as Saint Cyprian When Fortunatus Faelicissimus and others being sentenced and excommunicated in Africk addressed their complaint to the Bishop of Rome let us hear what Saint Cyprian said of it What cause had they to come and relate the making of a false Bishop against true Bishops Either that which they have done pleaseth them and they persevere in their wickednesse or if it displease them and they fall from it they know whether to return for whereas it is decreed by us all and it is equall and just that every ones cause should be heard there where the crime was committed and a certain portion of the Lords flock is assigned to each Pastor which he is to govern and to give an account of his actions to the Lord. Therefore it behooveth those whom we are over not to run up and down nor to break the firm concord of Bishops by their subtle and deceitfull rashnesse But to plead their cause there where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their crimes unlesse the authority of the African Bishops who have sentenced them already seem to a few desperate cast awaies to be inferior c. To say with Bellarmine that Saint Cyprian speaks only of the first instance is to contradict Saint Cyprian himself who saith expressely that the cause had been sentenced already in Africk Then I shewed the bounds of the ancient Roman Patriarchate out of Ruffinus The rest of the Chapter may be reduced to a Syllogisme Whatsoever Church or Churches were free and exempted from the forrein Jurisdiction of the Roman Court from the beginning untill the generall Councell of Ephesus and after untill the six hundreth year of Christ ought to continue free and exempted for ever notwithstanding the subsequent usurpation of any forrein Prelate or Patriarch This was clearly and irrefragably proved out of the words of the Councel it self And if the Bishop of Rome did intrude himself after that time he is a Robber and an Usurper and can never prescribe to a legall possession according to the famous rule of the Law Adversus furem aeternae authoritas esto But the Britannick Churches were free and exempted from the forrein Jurisdiction of the Roman Court from the beginning untill the generall Councell of Ephesus and after untill the six hundreth year of Christ. This assumption was proved first by their silence upon whom the proofe in law doth rest being not able to produce one instance of the exercise of their Jurisdiction in Britain or any of the Britannick Islands for the first six hundred yeares and in some parts of them scarcely for 1200. years When the Popes Legate would have entred into Scotland to visite the the Churches there about the year 1238. Alexander the second then King of the Scots forbad him to doe so alleging that none of his Predecessors had ever addmitted any such neither would he suffer it and therefore willed him at his own perill to forbear Secondly by priority of foundation the Britannick Church being the elder Sister and ancienter then the Roman and therefore could not be subject to the Roman Church from the beginning that was before there was a Roman Church Thirdly it was proved by the right of ordination and election of all our Primats For all other right of Jurisdiction doth follow or pursue the right of Ordination But it is most evident that all our British Primates or Archbishops were nominated and elected by our Princes with Synods and ordained by their own Suffragans at home as Dubricius St. David Samson c. not only in the reigns of Aurelius Ambrosius and King Arthur but even untill the time of Henry the first after the eleven hundreth year of Christ as Giraldus Cambrensis witnesseth Semper tamen c. Yet alwayes untill the full Conquest of Wales by the King of England Henry the first the Bishops of Wales were consecrated by the Archbishop of St. Davids And he likewise was consecrated by other Bishopâ— as his Suffragans without professing any manner of subjection to any other Church But principally it was proved by the answer of Dionothus the reverend and learned Abbat and Rector of the Monastery and University of Bangor and from the solemn Sentence or Decree of two British Synods in the point recorded by all our Historiographers who write the Acts of those times I confess he nâ—bles here and there at some odde ends of this discourse but taketh no â—â—ner of notice of the main grounds especially the two British Synods which are express in the point and the Answer of Dionâ—thus that they refused absolutely to submit to the Jurisdiction of the Pope or to receive Austin for their Archbishop That as for that man whom they called the Pope they oâ—â—gâ—â—t 〈◊〉 no obedience but the obedience of love that they were immediately under God subject to the Bishop of Caer Leon But let us take a view of his exceptions First he saith That Bellarmine hath not these words That Christ in saying these words As my Father sent use so send I you did endue his Apostles with all fullness of power that mortall men were capable of Neither did I cite his words but his sense as he might see by the Character but that Bellarmine said as much or more then this I will now make it good Let him speak for himself Therefore that the Apostles received theâ—r Iurisdiction immediately from Christ first the words of our Lord doe testifie John 20. As my Father sent me so send I you which place the Fathers Crysostome and Theophylact doe so expound that they say plainly that the Apostles were made by these words the Vicars of
nothing of Jurisdiction From St. Ninian he proceeds to Palladius and St. Patrick Pope Caelestine consecrated Palladius and sent him into Scotland And not forgetfull of Ireland sent thither S. Patrick In all the instances which he hath brought hitherto we finde nothing but Preaching and Converting and Christening not one syllable of any Jurisdiction Will the British Records afford us so many instances of this kinde and not so much as one of any legislative or judiciary act Then certainly there were none in those dayes Whether Palladius was sent to the British or Irish Scots is disputable But this is certain that whithersoever he was sent he was rejected and shortly after died In whose place succeeded St. Patrick Therefore his Disciples hearing of the death of Palladius the Archdeacon c. came to St. Patrick and declared it who having received the Episcopall degree from a Prelate called Arator straightway took ship c. Here is nothing of Caelestinus but of Arator nor of a Mandate but St. Patricks free devotion He saith The same Pope sent thither St. German and Lupus to confute the Pelagian Heresie and both Britans Scots Picts and Irish willingly accepted these Legates of the Popes nor denyed that they had any authoritie over them I am wearie of so many impertinencies Still here is not one word of any Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishops over the British Church but of their charity and devotion which we wish their Successors would imitate I confesse that Prosper saith that Peladius was sent by Caelestinus If it were so it concernes not this cause But Constantius and venerable Bede and almost all other Authors doe affirm positively that they were both sent by a French Synod to assist the Britans their neighbours against the Pelagians And it is most probable for they were both French Bishops St. German of Anxewe Lupus of Troyes Baronius labours to reconcile these two different relations thus It may be the Pope did approve the choyse of the Synod or it may be that Caelestine left it to the election of the Synod to send whom they pleased Admit either of these suppositions was true it will bring no advantage to his cause but much disadvantage If the Bishop of Rome had been reputed to be Patriarch of Britain and much more if he had been acknowledged to be a spirituall Monarch it is not credible that the Britannick Church should have applyed it self for assistance altogether to their neighbours and not at all to their Superior He addeth that they willingly accepted these Legates of the Popes He is still dreaming of Legates if they were Legates they were the Synods Legates not the Popes As much Legates and no more then the Messengers of the Brittish Church which they sent to help them were Legates eodem tempore ex Britanniâ directa Legatio Gallicanis Episcopis nunciavit c. at the same time the British Legates shewed their condition to the French Bishops what need the Catholick Faith did stand of their present assistance Had they not reason to wellcome them whom themselves had invited who were come only upon their occasion Or what occasion had they to deny their authority who neither did usurpe any authority nor pretend to any authority They came to dispute not to judge Aderat populus Spectator futurus ac Iudex I know Constantius and venerable Bede doe call them Apostolicus Sacerdotes Apostolical Bishops not from their mission but most plainly for their Apostolical Endowments erat in illis Apostolorum instar gloria authoritas c. That Saint Gregory did send Austin into England to convert the Saxons is most true that the British Churches did suffer him to exercise any Authority or Jurisdiction over them is most untrue Touching the precise time of his coming Historiographers doe not agree exactly All accord that it was about the six hundreth year of Christ a little more or less Before this time Cyprus could not be more free from forrein Jurisdiction then Britain was After this time we confess that the Bishops of Rome by the consent or connivence of the Saxon Kings as they came to be converted by degrees did pretend to some formalities of right or authority over the English Church at first in matters of no great consequence as bestowing the Pall or the like But without the consent or against the good pleasure of the King they had no more power at all Jeoffry of Monmouth saith that Dubritius primate of Britain was Legate of the See Apostolick I should sooner have beleeved it if he had proved it out of Gildas who lived in or about the age of Dubritius then upon the credit of Ieoffry of Monmouth who lived so many hundred years after his death whose Writings have been censured as too full of Fables It were over supine credulity to give more credit to him then to the most eminent Persons and Synods of the same and the ensuing age Dubritius was Primate of Wales in the dayes of King Arthur and resigned his Archbishoprick of Caer Leon to St. David who removed his Archiepiscopall See from thence to Minevia now called St. Davids by the licence of King Arthur not of the Pope King Arthur began his reign as it is commonly computed about the year 516. perhaps something sooner or later according to different accounts But certainly after the Councell of Ephesus from whence we demonstrate our exemption And so it can neither advantage his cause nor prejudice ours We are told of store of Roman Legats yet not so much as any one act of Jurisdiction pretended to be done by any of them Certainly either they were no Papall Legates or Papall Legates in those daies were but ordinary Messengers and pretended not to any legantine Court or legantine Power such as is exercised now a dayes St. Samson saith he had a Pall from Rome wherefore untruly saith L. D. that the Pall was first introduced in the reign of the Saxon Kings after six hundred years of Christ. He mistakes my meaning altogether and my words also I said not that the first use of the Pall began after the six hundreth year of Christ but the abuse of it that is the arbitrary imposition thereof by the Popes upon the British Churches When they would not suffer an Archbishop duely ellected and invested to exercise his function untill he had bought a Pall from Rome I know the contrary that they were in use formerly But whether they were originally Ensignes of honour conferred by Christian Emperours upon the Church namely Constantine and Valentinian as is most probable or assumed by Patriarches is a disputable point This is certain other Patriarches and Archbishops under them had their Palls in the primative times which they received not from Rome This Samson was Archbishop of Wales and had his Pall But it appeareth not at all that he had it from Rome It may be that they had
prescribed to the Bishops those things which did pertain to the profit of the Churches He referred the cause of Caecilianus an Ecclesiasticall cause to Miltiades Bishop of Rome and Marcus and Rhetecius and Maternus and Marinus as his Delegates or Commissioners visum est mihi it hath seemed good to me c. He accepted Appeals from the judgment of the Bishops He commanded Caecilianus to repair to Anilinus the Proconsul and Patritius Vicar of the Prefects as deputed and authorised by him as Judges to doe justice upon Ecclesiasticall Delinquents He sent for the Bishops assembled by his commandement at a Councell first at Tyrus then at Hierusalem that they should repaire with speed to Constantinople evestigio ad castra nostra maturetis to give an account to him of their actions and to shew how sincerely they had behaved themselves in their judgments In a word he medled so much in Ecclesiasticall affaires that he made himself as a common Bishop constituted by God I will conclude with his own profession in an Epistle to the Nicomedians If we have chaste and orthodox Bishops and endowed with humanitie we rejoyce but if any one shall audaciously and unadvisedly be vehemently affected to the memory and praise of those pests Eusebius and other Bishops he shall straight be repressed by my execution as the Minister of God And accordingly they were spoyled of their dignities and cast out of the Cities His second witness is Valentinian in an Epistle to Theodosius but which Valentinian which Theodosius where this Epistle is to be found he is silent and leaveth us if it were worth the labour to seek for a needle in a bottle of hay But the truth is there is nothing in it which concerneth this question nothing which we deny The words as they be alleged by him are these All antiquity hath given the Principality of Priesthood over all to the Bishop of the City of Rome Our question is concerning the Politicall Principality of Kings and Emperours and his answer is concerning the Principality of Priesthood Let them retain their Principality of Priesthood so they leave to Sovereign Princes their just Principality of Power We are ready to give them a principality of Priesthood if that would content them And neither all antiquity nor any antiquity did ever give them a principality of Power Or at least such a Supremacy of single sovereign monarchichall Power as they require about which our controversie now is A Lord chief Justice hath a principality of Order among his brother Judges of the same Coyfe and Bench and in some circumstantiall respects a kinde of eminency or principality of Power but no single supremacy so as to be able to crosse their votes with a non obstante Such a supremacy of sovereing single universall power of Priesthood the Church of God did never know either at Rome or elsewhere The Bishops of Rome were so farre from having power over generall Councells that they had no single power over their fellow Patriarchs So farre from having power over Emperours that they have been delegated by Emperours as their Commissioners in Ecclesiasticall causes have been convened before Emperors and deposed by Emperors Primitive Bishops use to stile Popes their brethren their collegues their fellows but never Ecclesiasticall Princes If he mean the second Valentinian his authority weighs nothing he was a young Novice mis-led by his Arrian Mother a wilfull ill-advised woman If he mean another Valentinian I shall shew him that he exercised this politicall Supremacy in Ecclesiasticall affaies it may be to the questioning of his Prince of Priests His third witness is Theodosius the younger in his Epistle to the Synod of Ephesus his words are these It is not lawfull for him that is not a Bishop to meddle with Ecclesiasticall matters Yet he did meddle with Ecclesticall matters This is that Theodosius that argued with the Bishops upon the holy Scriptures as if himself had been a Bishop This is that Theodosius which made this following Law We decree that who follow the ungodly faith of Nestorius or obey his wicked Doctrine if they be Bishops be cast out of the holy Churches but if Lay men anathematized This is that Theodosius that convocated the generall Councell of Ephesus by his Authority Royall and sent Candidianus thither to be his Deputy among other things set diligenter inspiceret c. to look diligently to the behaviours of the Bishops so see that no dissensions did arise among them to disturbe the consultations of Synods and to represse them likewise otherwise he might as well have staid at home Among the instructions of Theodosius given to Candidianus are the words alleged Candidianum ad banc sacram Synodum abire jussimus sed eae lege c. We command Candidianus to goe to this holy Synod but upon this condition that he should have nothing to doe with questions and controversies which concern Doctrines of faith for it is unlawfull for one not registred in the catalogue of Bishops to thrust himself into ecclesiasticall affairs and consultations This is as much as to say that Candidianus was not sent by the Emperour to dispute in the Councell about Theologicall questions which it is probable he did not understanding nor to overawe the Bishops or controlle their votes We are of the same minde with Theodosius and say as much as he that it is not fit for every man promiscuously to dispute of Theologicall questions And though we give the severeign Regiment of the Church in some sense to Princes within their own Dominions yet we would not have them to govern it upon their own heads but upon mature advise of free Synods of Ecclesiasticall persons who are their proper Counsellors in Church affairs All men know that Candidianus could have no decisive voice in a generall Councell So we would not have Princes meddle with the Keyes of the Church either the Key of Knowledge or the Key of Order We confesse that some causes in the first instance belong properly to Bishops yet the last Appeal may be to the King We say there are many things which Kings cannot doe in their own persons and yet may be done by fit Delegates by their Royall authority His fourth witness is Valentinian the elder It is not lawfull for me who am of the People to search curiously such matters let Priests who have care of these things meet where they please The case was this Valentinian had associated his Brother Valens with him in the Empire Valens was an Arrian Valentinian an orthodox Christian yet so as he troubled not those who were of a contrary Opinion He being at this time in his voyage through Thracia towards Rome the orthodox Bishops about the Hellespont and in Bythinia sent their Depuities unto him to request him to give them leave to assemble together in Councell for the establishment of the right Faith wherein they acknowledged him
other Churches and not Rome St. Peter might have continued Bishop of Antioch untill his death and then Antioch had still been the Mistriss and foundation of all other Churches He might have been neither Bishop of Antioch nor Rome and then the other Churches had wanted such an hereditary Mistriss All this is confessed by Bellarmine Doth Paul the ninth make us new Articles of Faith of so great contingency that were not of perpetuall necessity How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians in all places when there have been so many Christian Churches ever since the dayes of the Apostles who never had any thing to doe with Rome nor scarcely ever heard of the name of Rome If the Pope be the Master of all Christians he is but a young Master for we finde no such expression in all the primitive times Why were the ancient Bishops so grosly over-seen to stile him their Brother their Collegue their Fellow who was their Master It might be modesty in the Pope to use such familiar expressions as a Generall calls all his Army fellow Souldiers but it was never heard that a private Colonell or Captain did call his Generall fellow Souldier or a Servant call his Master fellow Servant or an ordinary Clerk call his Bâ—shop his Brother St. Peter writ himself a fellow elder not a Master If St. Paul had known that the Roman Church had been the Mistriss and foundation of all other Churches he would have given them their due title and the whole Scripture had not been so silent in so necessarie a point But he saith the Popes Supremacy is neither against the two Creeds nor the fiâ—st four generall Councells intimating thereby that it excludes none from salvation and consequently is no sufficient cause of separation I answer first that it is against the four first generall Councels if this were a proper place for the discussion of it I answer secondly that though it were not opposite to the Creed or the first four generall Councells yet if it be not virtually included in the Creed being as it is by them obtruded upon all Christians as an Article of faith or a necessarie part of saving truth extra quam non est salus without which there is no salvation it becomes a just and sufficient cause of separation to all those upon whom it is so obtruded Of this more in the next argument My second argument may be thus reduced That Court which obtruded newly coyned Articles of faith such as the Doctrin of the seven Sacraments Transubstantiation Purgatory Invocation of Saints worshipping of Images Indulgences and especially the Popes Supremacy upon the Christian world as absolutely necessary to salvation and necessarie conditions of Catholick communion and excommunicateth and anathematizeth above three parts of the Christian world for not admitting them is fearfully schismaticall But the Court of Rome doth all this That these are no old Articles appeareth by all the ancient Creeds of the Church wherein they are neither explicitely nor virtually comprehended That they are made new Articles by the Court of Rome appeareth by the Bull of Pius the fourth wherein they are added to the old Creed ut unius ejusdem fidei professio uniformiter ab omnibus exhibeatur that the profession of one and the same faith may be declared uniformly by all and one certain form thereof be made known to all And lastly That the Court of Rome hath solemnly excommunicated with the greater excommunication and anathematized and excluded so farre as lieth in their power from the communion of Christ all the Grecian Russian Armenian Abyssen and reformed Churches being three times more in number then themselves for not receiving these new Articles or some of them and especially for not acknowledging the Sovereign Power and Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop and his Court appeareth undeniably by the famous Bull of Pius the fifth called Bulla caenae because it is read in die caenae Domini or upon Thursday before Easter In way of answer to this he asketh how this was any cause of King Henry's revolt I reply first that though Henry the eighth had not thought of this so it had not been causa procreans a productive cause of the separation yet to us it is a most just cause to condemn them of Schism Secondly the revolt or more truly the separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome was not made by Henry the eight or the English Church but by the Pope and Court of Rome who excommunicated him and his Kingdome for not enduring their encroachments and usurpations He and his Kingdome were passive in it only the Court of Rome was doubly active first in revolting from the right Discipline of their Predecessors and secondly in excluding the party wronged from their communion But in the separation of England from the oppessions of the Court of Rome I confesse that Henry the eighth and the Kingdom were active And this very ground to avoid the tyranny and ambition and avarice of the Roman Court was the chief impulsive cause both to the English and Eastern Christians For though the Sovereignty of the Roman Bishop was not obtruded upon them in form of a Creed yet it was obtruded upon them as a necessarie point of Faith If Henry the eight had any other private sinistre grounds known only to himself they doe not render the Reformation one jod the worse in it self but only prove that he proceeded not uprightly which concerneth him not us Secondly he answereth that though they profess that it is necessary to salvation to be under the Pope as Vicar of Christ yet they say not that it is necessary necessitate medii so as none can be saved who doe not actually beleeve it If all this were true yet it were too much to oblige the whole Christian world to submit to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ by virtue of the commandement of God But I fear that Pope Pius by his Bull and all they by their swearing in obedience thereunto doe make it to be necessary necessitate medii so as none can be saved who doe not actually beleeve it And then there was little hope of salvation throughout the whole Christian World in the times of the Councells of Constance and Basile out of the Popes own Court which was then the only Noahs Arke The words of their Oath are these Hanc veram catholicam fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest c. This true catholick faith without which no man can be saved which I profess freely and hold truly in present I doe promise vow and swear by the help of God to retein and confess perfect and inviolated most constantly to my last gasp and will take care so farre as in me lyeth to cause it to be taught and preached to all that shall be committed to my charge If it were not necessary necessitate medii some
Jurisdiction Secondly The Church and Kingdom of England had more lawful just and noble grounds for their separation from the Court of Rome then any base parasitical compliance with the humours of any Prince whatsoever as he cannot chuse but see in this very Chapter But who is so blind as he that will not see Thirdly We do confess that the Primitive Papacy that is an Exordium unitatis a beginning of unity was an excellent meanes of Concord We do not envy the Bishop of Rome or any Honour which the Catholick Church did allow him But moderne Papacy which they seek to obtrude upon us is rather as Nilus saith the cause of all dissentions and Controversies of the Christian World Lastly To his demand concerning the English Court and Church Whether I would condescend to the rejection of Monarchy and to the extirpation of Episcopacy for the misgovernment of Princes or abuses of Prelats I answer No But this will not advantage his cause at all for three Reasons First never were any such abuses as these objected either to Princes or Prelates in England Secondly we seek not the extirpation of the Papacy but the reduction of it to the primitive constitution Thirdly Monarchy and Episcopacie are of divine institution so is not a papall Sovereignty of Jurisdiction His parliamentary Prelacie hath more sound then weight We need not be beholden to Parliament for the Justification of our Prelacie as he will finde that undertakes it Sect. 6. We are now come to the grounds of our separation from the Court of Rome Reader observe and wonder All this while they have been calling to us for our grounds they have declaimed that there can be no just grounds of such a separation They have declared in the Hypothesis that we had no grounds but to comply with the Humours of a lustful Prince Now we present our grounds being reduced to five Heads First The most intolerable extortions of the Roman Court committed from age to age without hope of Remedy Secondly Their most unjust usurpations of all Rights Civil Ecclesiastical sacred and prophane of all orders of men Kings Nobles Bishops c. Thirdly the malignant influence and effects of this forreign jurisdiction destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiastical Discipline producing dis-union in the Realm factions animosities between the Crown and the Mitre intestine discord between the King and his Barons bad intelligence with neighbour Princes and forreign wars Fourthly a list of other inconveniences or rather mischiefs that did flow from thence as to be daily subject to have new Articles of faith obtruded upon them exposed to manifest perill of Idolatry to forsake the Communion of three parts of Christendome to approve the Popes rebellion against general Councels and to have their Bishops take an Oath contrary to their oath of Allegeance to maintaine the Pope in his rebellious usurpations Lastly The weakness of the Popes pretences and the exemption of the Brittannique Church from forreign jurisdiction by the Decree of the General Councel of Ephesus Certainly he ought to have shewed either that these grounds conjoyned were not sufficient or that they were not true or that there were other remedies But he is well contented to pass by them all in silence which is as mueh as yeeld the Cause Thus he It is then of little concernment to examine whether his complaints be true or false since he does not shew there was no other remedy but division What is it of little concernment to examine whether the grounds be sufficient or no It belongs not to me to shew that there was no other remedy that is to prove a negative but if he will answer my grounds it belongs to him to shew that there was other remedy yet so far as a negative is capable of proof I have shewed even in this Chapter that there was no other remedy I shewed that the Pope and his Court were not under the Jurisdiction of the King or Church of England so as to call them to a personal account I shewed that the English Nation had made their addresses to the Pope in Councel out of Councel for ease from their oppressions in diversages and never found any but what they carved out to themselves at home after this manner He adds And much more since it is known if the authority be of Christs institution no just cause can possibly be given for its abolishment This is a very euthumematical kinde of arguing If the sky fall we shall have larks He knows right well that it is his assumption which is latent that we deny that we have abolished any thing which either Christ or his Church did institute He proceedeth But most because all other Catholick Countries might have made the same exception which England pretends yet they remaine still in communion with the Church of Rome and after we have broke the Ice do not hold it reasonable to follow our example Few or no Catholick Countries have sustained so great oppression from the Court of Rome as England hath which the Pope himself called his Garden of delight a Well that could not be drawn dry All other Countries have not right to the Cyprian Priviledge to be exempt from forreign jurisdiction as Brittaine hath Yet all other Catholick Countries do maintaine their owne Priviledges inviolated and make themselves the last Judge of their grievances from the Court of Rome Some other Catholick Countries know how to make better use of the Papacy then England doth yet England is not alone in the separation so long as all the Easterne Southerne Northern and so great a part of the Westerne Churches have separated themselves from the Court of Rome and are separated by them from the Church of Rome as well as we yet if it were otherwise we must live by precepts not by examples Nay saith he The former ages of our Countrey had the same cause to cast the Popes Supremacy out of the Land yet rather preferred to continue in the peace of the Church then attempt so destructive an innovation Mistake not us so much we desire to live in the peaceable communion of the Catholick Church as well as our Ancestors at far as the Roman Court will give us leave neither were our Ancestors so stupid to see themselves so fleeced and trampled upon and abused by the Court of Rome and to sit still in the mean time and blow their noses They did by their lawes exclude the Popes supremacy out of England so farre as they judged it necessary for the tranquility of the Kingdome that is his patronage of Churches his Legates and Legantine Courts his buls and sentences and excommunications his legislative power his power to receive appeals except onely in cases where the Kingdome did give consent They threatned him further to make a wall of separation between him and them We have more experience then our Ancestours had that their remedies were not Soveraigne or sufficient enough that if we
a single head of Power Jurisdiction for to me he seemeth to hover between two as if he would gladly say more for the Pope if he could Thirdly it followeth and consequently to his Successors I like the general proposition well enough and consequently to his Successours For the reason of the first institution being of perpetual necessity seemeth to imply strongly that such an headship of order ought to continue in the Church or at least may lawfully be continued in the Church But I like not his application to the Bishops of Rome or his Successors in the See of Rome That consequence is but like a Rope of sand There is no necessity at all that he who succeedeth a man in a particular Bishoprick should succeed him in a higher office which is not annexed to that Bishoprick As if a man should argue thus Such a Bishop of such a See dyed Lord Chancellour of England therefore all succeeding Bishops of the same See must succeed him likewise in the Chancellor ship of England If the Catholick Church do nominate the Biâ—hop of Rome for the time that is another matter but that is no perpetuity to the Bishops of that See for ever whether the Church will or not Certainly Christ did leave the chief Mesuagery of his family to his Spouse that is the Church and not to any single servant further then as subservient to his spâ—use But to make Rome to be the Mâ—stris of the Church as this Resuter doth and the Bishop oâ— Rome the Master of the Church is sâ—ch an indignity and affront as no husband would tolerate much less Christ who is proposed to all husbands as the perfect pattern of coâ—jugal love Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church His argument drawn from the vicissitude of humane affaires cuâ—s the throat of his cause for what priviledge hath Rome from this vicissitude more then other places It may be demolished and destroyed by enemies it may be swallowed by an earthquake as some great Cities have been it may become heretical or Mahumetan And in all these cases must it still continue Mistris of the Church That were an hard condition Nemâ— sapiens Ligat sibimanus The Church nâ—ver disposeth so of her offices that she may not be able to move the rudder according to the change of wind and weather and to change the mesuagery of Ecclesiastical affaires according to the vicissitide of humane things Let not the Refuter trifle between a primacy of order and a Supremacy of power a Tyranny and an Anarchy are the two extreams The Church may shake off tyranny and yet not vanish into a pure Anarchy nor the frame thereof be utterly dissolved these are but made Dragons Between a tyranny and an Anarchy there is an Aristocracy which was the ancient Regiment of the Christian Church they know no Monarch but Christ their spiritual King A primacy of order is as sufficient nay more sufficient in this case to prevent all these dangers which he seemeth to fear and to procure all those advantages which he mentioneth than a Supremacy of power And I hold it a reasonable proposition that whosoever is admitted to the one should disclaime the other In the next passage he forgetteth himself over much when he maketh the Popes principality to be the bridle which our Saviour hath put into the mouth of his Church So he makes the Church to be the Beast and the Popes office to be to ride upon the Church No he quite mistaketh the matter Our Saviour hath put the bridle into the hand of his Church Dâ—c Ecclesiae tell it to the Church not into the mouth of his Church and the Pope at the best is but one of the Churches Escuriers Next he proclaimeth the advantages of the Papacy He doth well to cry up his cause No man proclaimeth in the market that he hath rotten wares to sell. But it is but with an if If this authority were duly preserved and governed no dissention in faith or discipline nay not any war among Christian Princes could annoy the world What Christian Prince can chuse but be glad to have an arbitrator so prudent so pâ—ous so disinterressed as a good Pope should be He brings to my mind our old distinction between Plato and Aristotle Plato script sit somnians Aristoteles vigilans Plato writ dreaming and Aristotle waking the one looked upon men as they ought to be and the other as they were which was much more proper for one that was to write politicks If all things were as they should be we should have a brave world buâ— if we look upon the case without an if or as he should be we shall finde the Papacy as it is settled or would have been so far from deserving these â—ulogiums which he gives it that it hath been the cause either procreating or conserving or both of all the Schisms and all the greater Ecclesiastical dissentions in Christendom and rather an incentive to waâ— for its own interest and advantage then a means of peace and reconciliation among Christian Princes But now Reader look to thy self that thou receive no hurt for he hath undertaken to let us see all the arrowes which I have shot against them falling down upon mine own head Yes at the Greek Calends when an oblique and a perpendicular motion are the sâ—me But let us see how he attempts to prove it Because the Papacy stands firme and strong in all these Countries which have resisted the Pope when they conceived that he encroached on their liberties c. whereas as the Reformation has made England an headless Synagogue without brotherhood or order Neither â—o nor so the Eastern Southerne and Northerne Churches admit no Papacy nor any thing higher then the chiefâ—st Patriarch A great part of the Westerne Churches have shaken off the Roman yoke and the rest who do still acknowledge the Papacy do it with such cautions and reservations and restrictions especially France and Sicilly that I think the Cardinal Legate in the Councel of Trent had reason to say that he would rather perswade the Pope to give up his Keys to St. Peter then hold them upon such tearms I believe not one of them all doth admit such a Papacy as the Roman Court endeavoured to have obtruded upâ—n them Whereas he stileth England an headless Synagogue without brotherhood or order he seeth or may see that for order we are as much for it as himself for Christian Brotherhood we maintaine it three times larger then himself and for his headless Synagogue they want no head who have Christ for a spiritual head a General Councel for an Ecclesiastical head and a gracious Christian Prince for a political head That Title would better have become themselves about two or three moneths since who sometimes have two or three heads sometimes a broken head sometimes never an head The Protestants do not attempt to make themselves a distinct body from the rest of the
did not know who were obstinate and who were not who erred for want of light and who erred contrary to the light of their own consciences The like Spirit did possess Optatus who in the treatise cited by R. C. doth continually call the Donatists Brethren not by chance or inanimadvertence but upon premeditation he justifieth the title and professeth himself to be obliged to use it he would not have done so to Idolaters And a little before in the same Book he wonders why his Brother Parmenian being only a Schismatick would rank himself with Hereticks who were falsifiers of the Creed that is the old primitive Creed which the Councel of Trent it self placed in the front of their Acts as their North-star to direct them I wish they had steered their course according to their compass To cut off a lim from a man or a branch from a tree saith he is to destroy them most true But the case may be such that it is necessary to cut off a limb to save the whole body as in a gangreen The word of errour is a canker or gangreen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not cancer a crabfish because it is retrograde which was Anselmes mistake So when superfluous branches are lopped away it makes the tree thrive and prosper the better His second conclusion from hence is that there can be no just or sufficient cause given for Schism because there can be no just cause of committing so great a sinne And because there is no salvation out of the Church which he proveth out of St. Cyprian and St. Austin to little purpose whilest no man doubts of it or denies it And hence he inferres this corollary that I say untruely that the Church of Rome is the cause of this Schism and all other Schisms in the Church because there ean be no just cause of Schism My words were these that the Church of Rome or rather the Pope and Court of Rome are causally guilty both of this Schism and almost all other Schisms in the Church There is a great difference between these two But to dispell umbrages and to clear the truth from these mists of words We must distinguish between the Catholick oecumenicall Church and particular Churches how eminent soever As likewise between criminous Schism and lawfull separation First I did never say that the Catholick or universall Church either did give or could give any just cause of separation from it yea I ever said the contrary expresly And therefore he might well have spared his labour of citing St. Austin and St. Cyprian who never understood the Catholick Church in his sense His Catholick Church was but a particular Church with them And their Catholick Church is a masse of Monsters and an Hydra of many Heads with him But I did say and I doe say that any particular Church without exception whatsoever may give just cause of separation from it by heresy or Schism or abuse of their authority in obtruding errours And to save my self the labour of proving this by evidence of reason and by authentick testimonies I produce R. C. himself in the point in this very Survey Neither can there be any substantiall division from any particular Church unlesse she be really hereticall or schismaticall I say really because she may be really hereticall or schismaticall and yet morally a true particular Church because she is invincibly ignorant of her heresy or schism and so may require profession of her heresy as a condition of communicating with her In which case division from her is no schism or sinne but virtue and necessary And when I urge that a man may leave the communion of an erroneous Church as he may leave his Fathers house when it is infected with some contagious sicknesse with a purpose to returne to it again when it is cleansed he answers that this may be true of a particular Church but cannot be true of the universall Church Such a particular Church is the Church of Rome Secondly I never said that a particular Church did give or could give sufficient cause to another Church of criminous Schism The most wicked society in the world cannot give just cause or provocation to sinne Their damnation is just who say let us doe evil that good may come of it Whensoever any Church shall give sufficient cause to another Church to separate from her the guilt of the Schisme lies not upon that Church which makes the separation but upon that Church from which the separation is made This is a truth undenyable and is confessed plainly by Mr. Knott They who first separated themselves from the primitive pure Church and brought in corruptions in faith practise liturgy and use of Sacraments may truely be said to have bene Hereticks by departing from the pure faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the externall communion of the true uncorrupted Church We maintain that the Church of Rome brought in these corruptions in Faith Practise Liturgie and use of the Sacraments and which is more did require the profession of her errors as a condition of communicating with her And if so then by the judgement of her own Doctors the Schism is justly laid at her own door and it was no sinne in us but virtue and necessary to separate from her I acknowledge that St. Austin saith praescindendae unitatis nulla est justa necessitas there is no sufficient cause of dividing the unity of the Church But he speaks not of false doctrines or sinful abuses in the place alledged as if these were not a sufficient cause of separation He proves the express contrary out of the words of the Apostle Gal 1.8 and 1. Tim. 1.3 He speaks of bad manners and vitious humors and sinister affections especially in the preachers as envy contention contumacy incontinency This was his case then with the Donatists and is now the case of the Anabaptists That these are no sufficient cause of dividing unity he proveth out of Phil. 1. v. 15.16.17.18 He saith that in these cases there is no sufficient cause cum disciplinae severitatem consideratio custodiendae pacis refraenat aut differt when the consideration of preserving peace doth restrain or delay the severity of Ecclesiasticaâ—ll discipline He saith not that in other cases there can be no sufficient cause what doth this concern us who beleeve the same His second note is this that Protestants have forsaken the Pope the Papacy the universal Roman Church and all the ancient Christian Churches Grecian Armenian Ethiopian in their communion of Sacraments and to clear themselves from Schism must bring just cause of separation from every one of these I answer that we are separated indeed from the Pope and Papacy that is from his primacy of power from his universality of jurisdiction by divine right which two are already established from his superiority above general Councels and infallibility of judgment which are the most received Opinions
the Popes at their pleasures gave legislative interpretations of other of their ecclesiasticall Laws as they thought good in order to their own Dominions made ecclesiasticall Corporations appropriated ecclesiasticall Benefices translated episcopall Sees forbid Appeals to Rome rejected the Popes Bulls protested against his Legats questioned both the Legates and all those who acknowledged them in the Kings Bench condemned the Excommunications and other sentences of the Roman Court enlarged or restrained the priviledges of the Clergy prescribed the endowment of Vicars set down the wages of Priests and made Acts to remedy the oppressions of the Roman Court And all this was shewed evidently not out of the single testimonies of some obscure Authors but out of the Customes and Common Law of the Realm out of the Reports of our Judges and greatest Lawyers out of the Laws of Edward the Confessor the Statutes of Clarendon and Carlile the Articles of the Clergy the Statutes of Provisors and many other Statutes made with the generall consent of the whole Kingdome It is not possible in any cause to produce more authenticall proofs then these are To all which in particular R. C. answers not one word So as once more I take it for granted that Henry the eight did nothing in his separation from the Court of Rome but what his most renowned Ancestors had chalked forth unto him All that he saith with any shew of opposition to this is first That whatsoever Kings doe is not lawfull Whereas I spake not of any single Kings but of the whole succession of British Eâ—glish Danish and Norman Kings nor of Kings alone but of them with the consent and concurrence of the whole Kingdome Clergy and Laity whiâ—h proves irrefragably that what they did was the Custome and common fundamentall Law of the Kingdome And that there is no Prescription nor can be against it That they did it de facto is enough to make good my assertion that Henry the eight did no new thing but what his Predecessors in all ages had done before him Secondly he saith That Kings may resist the exercise or Acts of Papall power sometimes and yet acknowledge the power Whereas the Laws and testimonies which I produced doe not only speak against some acts of Papall power but against the power it self against the Popes power to make Laws to send Legats or Bulls or Excommunications without license the power to receive Appeals the power to make ecclesiasticall Coâ—porations the power to dispose of ecclesiasticall Benefices c. What lawfull power had the Pope in the eye of the Law of England who by the Law of England could neither send a Legate thither to doe Justice there nor call the Delinquents or Litigants to Rome to doe Justice there without license Our Laws speak not only against Pandulphus or this or that Legate but against all Legates that come without license nor against the Bull or Excommunication of Paul the third alone but against all Bulls and Excommunications which were brought from Rome into the Kingdome without license Frustranea est ea potentia quae nunquam deduci potest in actum In vain is an absolute power given to a single person to execute that which he cannot execute without another mans license Lastly our Laws do ascribe this very power to the King which the Pope doth challenge The Patronage of the Church the power to make ecclesiasticall Laws the power to call ecclesiasticall Synods the power to dispose of all things which concern the externall regiment of the Church by the advise of his Clergy and Councell within his own Dominions In vain doth he distinguish between the acts or exercise of Papall power and the power it self seeing our ancient Law doth not only forbid the exercise of Papall power but deny the power it self He saith If I would indeed prove that Henry the eight did but vindicate his ancient liberty I should prove that English Kings before him did challenge to be heads of the Church immediatly under Christ by which headship as it was expressed in King Edwards time all Iurisdiction both in spirituall and temporall causes descended from the Crown To prove that Henry the eighth did but vindicate his ancient Liberty it is not necessary that I should justifie all the extravagant expressions or oylie insinuations of parasiticall flatterers Our Kings neither doe challenge nor ever did challenge all Jurisdiction in spirituall causes nor any part of the power of the Keyes either to their own use or to derive it to others Great Pallaces seldome want their Moths or great Princes their Flatterers who are ready to blow the coals of ambition and adorn their Masters with stollen plumes such as the Canonists were of old to the Popes It is not much to be wondred at if some Protestants did overshoot themselves in some expressions upon this subject having learned that language from a Roman Catholick before them Bishop Bonner being the Kings Embassador with Clement the seventh did so boldly and highly set forth his Masters Supremacy in the Assembly of the Cardinalls that they thought of burning him or casting him into a vessell of scalding lead if he had not provided for his own safety by flight Acworth contra Monarch Sanderi l. 2. p. 195. It would better become him and me if any such thing had beene to give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods It is enough to my purpose to have shewed that all King Henries Predecessors did both challenge and enjoy this politicall headship of the Church as I have shewed throughout all the parts branches thereof if he could see wood for trees These very flowers and jewels of the Crown enumerated by me in this Chapter and demonstrated out of our Laws in my vindication doe make up that politique headship that is a power paramount to see that all persons doe their duties in their callings and that all things be acted by fit Agents which are necessary to that great and Architectonicall end that is the safety and tranquility of the Commonwealth This is that title which Edward the Confessor did enjoy before the Conquest namely The Vicar of God to govern the Church within his own Dominions which is neither more nor lesse then the politicall head of the Church In a great Family there are severall offices as a Divine a Physitian a Schoolmaster and every one of these is supreme in his own way yet the Master of the Family hath an oeconomicall power over them all to see that none of them doe abuse their trust to the disturbance of the Family Our Parliament Rolles our ecclesiasticall Registers the Records of the Kings Bench and Common Pleas doe all prove that it is no innovation for our Kings to interpose in ecclesiasticall affairs I doe confesse that some of these flowers which were peculiar to the King as the Patronage and investitures of Bishops in later dayes were snatched from the Crown by the violence of
if it had been a solemn interdict in those dayes And this nameless Author calls it but an Epistle Moreover he tells us of honourable presents sent to the Pope but not a word of any absolution which had been more to his purpose if this had been an excommunication It could be nothing but a threatning That unless this abuse were reformed he would hold no communion with them As Victor a much better Pope and in much better times dealt with the Asiaticks over whom he had no Jurisdiction There is a vast difference between formall excommunication and withholding of communion as also between imposing ecclesiasticall punishment and only representing what is incurred by the Canons Where observe with me two things First R. C. his great mistake that here was a command to erect new Bishopricks to which the Canons of the Fathers oblige not and therefore it must proceed from soveraign Authority whereas here was only a filling or supplying of the empty Sees The Authors words are de renovandis Episcopatibus of renewing not erecting Bishopricks and per septem annos destituta Episcopis they had wanted Bishops for seven years Lastly the names of the Sees supplyed which were all ancient episcopall Sees from the first conversion of the West-Saxons doe evince this Winchester Schireborne or Salessbâ—ry Wells Credinton now Exceter and the Bishoprick of Cornwall called anciently St. Germans Secondly observe that whatsoever was done in this business was done by the Kings Authority congregavit Rex Edwardus Synodum King Edward assembled a Synod saith the same Author in the place cited And he calls the sentence of the Synod Decretum Regis the Kings Decree This is more to prove the Kings politicall headship in convocating Synods and confirming Synods then all his conjectures and surmises to the contrary They with all humility admitted Legates of the Pope in the time of Kinulphus and Offâ— and admitted the erection of a new Archbishoprick in England Why should they not admit Legates What are Legates but Messenges and Ambassadors The office of an Ambassador is sacred though from the Great Turk But did they admit them to hold Legantine Courts and swallow up the whole ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction of the Kingdome King Offa desired to have a new Archbishoprick established at Lichfeild within his own Dominions and before he had the concurrence of Pope Adrian had excluded the Archbishop of Canterbury out of the Mercian Kingdome by royall Authority On the other side Kenulphus desired to have the Archbishoprick setled as it was formerly at Canterbury This is nothing to enforced Jurisdiction England alwaies admitted the Popes Legates and his Bulls with consent of the King but not otherwise Here again he cites no Authority but his own They professed that it belonged to Bishops to punish Priests and religious men and not to Kings No man doubts of it in their sense but they who leave nothing certain in the World Here is nothing but a heape of confused generalities In some cases the punishment of Clergy men doth not belong to Kings but Archbishops that is cases of Ecclesiasticall cognisance tryable by the Cannon Law in the first instance In other cases it belongs not to Archbishops but to Kings to be their Judges as in cases of civill cognisance or upon the last appeale Not that the King is bound to determine them in his own person but by fit Deputies or Delegates Plato makes all Regiment to consist of these three parts knowing commanding and executing The first belongs to the King and his Councell The second to the King in hâ—s person The third to the King by his Deputies So the King governs in the Church but not as a Church-man in the Army but not as a Souldier In the City but not as a Merchant in the Country but not as an Husbandman Our Kings did never use to determine Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall causes in their own persons but by meete selected Delegates Persons of great maturity of judgement of known dexterity in the Cannon Laws of approved integrity And lastly such at least some of the number as were qualified by their callings to exercise the power of the Keyes and to act by excommunication or absolution according to the exigence of the cause and who more proper to be such Delegates in questions of moment then Archbishops and Bishops This is so evident in our Laws and Histories that it is not only lost labour but shame to oppose it King Edgars words in the place alleged were these Meae solicitudinis est c. It belongs to my care to provide necessaries for the Ministers of Churches c. and to take order for their peace and quiet the examination of whose manners belongs to you whether they live continently and behave themselves honestly to them that are without whether they be solicitous in performing divine offices diligent to instruct the People sober in their conversations modest in their habits discreet in their judgments No man doubts of this But for all this Edgar did not forget his Kingly office and duty See the conclusion of the same oration to the Clergy contempta sunt verba veniendum est ad verbera c. words are dispised it must come to blows Thou hast with thee there the venerable father Edelwald Bishop of Winchester and Oswald the most reverend Bishop of Worcester I commit that busines to you that persons of bad conversation may be cast out of the Churches and persons of good life brought in by your episcopall censure and my royall Authority So Edgar did not forget his politicall headship What King Withred said was spoken in the Councell of Becancelde where he himself fate as a civill president and where the Decrees of the Councell issud in his name and by his Authority firmiter decernimus c. His words are these It belongs to him the King to make Earls Dukes Noble men Princes Presidents and secular Iudges but it belongs to the Metropolitan or Archbishop to govern the Churches to choose Bishops Abbats and other Prelates c. If King Withred had said It belongs to the Pope to govern the Churches it had made for his purpose indeed But saying as he doth it belongs to the Metropolitan it cuts the throat of his cause and shews clearly what we say that our Metropolitans are not subordinate to any single ecclesiasticall Superior As for the bounds between the King and the Archbishop we know them well enough he needed not trouble his head about it They suffered their Subjects to professe that qui non communicat Ecclesiae Romanae Hereticus est quicquid ipsa statuerit suscipio quod damnaverit damno He is an Heretick that holds not communion with the Church of Rome what she determines I receive what she condemns I condemn Supposing these to be the very words of Ealred though I have no reason to trust his citations further then I see them and supposing them to have
case they make themselves Judges of the difference between them and the Court of Rome as whether the Pope have invaded their priviledges or usurped more Authority then is due unto him or in contemning his censures which the Councell of Towers doth expresly allow them to doe and judging whether the Popes Key have erred or not Yeeld thus much and the question is at an end That sovereign Princes within their own Dominions are the last Judges of their own Liberties and of papall oppressions and usurpations and the validity or invalidity of the Popes censures There is one thing more in this discourse in this place which I may not omit That Papall Authority is instituted immediately by God but not Regall Cujus contrarium verum est He was once or seemed to be of another minde For of almighty God his meer bounty and great grace they Kings receive and hold their Diadems and Princely Scepters Saint Paul saâ—th expresly speaking of civill Powers The Powers that be are ordeined of God and whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation The eternall Wisdome of the Father hath said By me Kings reign and Princes decree Iustice. If they be ordeined by God and reign by God then they are instituted by God Therefore they are justly stiled the living Images of God that saveth all things He who said by me Kings reign never said by me Popes reign Kings may inherit by the Law of man or be elected by the Suffrages of men But the Regall Office and Regall Power is immediately from God No man can give that which he himself hath not The People have not power of Life and Death That must come from God By the Law of nature Fathers of Families were Princes and when Fathers of Families did conjoyn their power to make one Father of a Country to whom doth he owe his power but to God from whom Fathers of Families had their power by the Law of nature As for the Pope he derives his Episcopall power from Christ his Patriarchall power from the Church and Monarchicall power from himself After this in the vindication I descended to severall new considerations as namely the power of Princes to reform new Canons by the old Canons of the Fathers the subjection of Patriarchall power to Imperiall which I shewed by a signall example of Pope Gregory who obeied the command of Mauritius the Emperor though he did not take it to be pleasing to Almighty God the erection of new Patriarchates by Emperors and the translation of primacies by our Kings And so I proceeded to the grounds of their separation first the intolerable rapine and extortions of the Roman Court in England Secondly their unjust usurpations of the undoubted rights of all orders of men and particularly how they made our Kings to be their vassals and the Succession to the Crown arbitrary at their pleasures Thirdly because our Ancestors found by experience that such forrein jurisdiction was destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiasticall discipline Fourthly sundry other inconveniences to have been dayly subject to the imposition of new Articles of Faith to be exposed to manifest perill of Idolatry to have forsaken the Communion of three parts of Christendome to have approved the Popes rebellion against generall Councels and to have their Bishops swear to maintain him in his rebellious usurpations Lastly the priviledge of the Britannick Churches the Popes disclaiming all his Patriarchall authority and their challenging of all this by Divâ—ne right which made their sufferings irremediable from Rome Lastly I shewed that our Ancestors from time to time had made more addresses to Rome for remedy then either in duty or in prudence they ought to have done All this he passeth by in silence as if it did not concern the cause at all Only he repeats his former distinction between the Pope the Papacy and the Roman Church which hath been so often confuted already and blameth Protestants for revolting from the Roman Church for the faults of some few Popes As if all these things which are mentioned here and set down at large in the vindication were but some infirmitives or some petty faults of some few Popes I have shewed him clearly that the most of our grounds are not the faults of the Popes but the faults of the Papacy it self And as for forsaking the Church of Rome he doth us wrong I shewed him out of our Canons in this very place that we have not forsaken it but only left their Communion in some points wherein they had left their Ancestors we are ready to acknowledge it as a Sister to the Britannick Church a Mother to the Saxon Church but as a Lady or Mistrisse to no Church Afterwards he descendth to two of the grounds of our Reformation to shew that they were insufficient The new Creed of Pius the 4 th and the withholding the Cup from the Laity Two of two and twenty make but a mean induction He may if he please see throughout this Treatise that we had other grounds bâ—sides these Yet I confesse that in his choise he hath swerved from the rules of prudence and hath not sought to leap over the Hedge where it was lowest First saith he The new Creed could not be the cause of the separation because the separation was made before the Creed He saith true if it had been only the reduction of these new mysteries into the form of a Creed that did offend us But he knoweth right well that these very points which Pius the 4 th comprehended in a new Symball or Creed were obtruded upon us before by his predecess ors as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith and required as necessary conditions of their Communion So as we must either receive these or utterly lose them This is the only difference that Pius the 4 th dealt in grosse his predecessors by retaile They fashioned the severall rods and he bound them up into a bundle He saith That the new Creed is nothing but certain points of Catholick Faith proposed to be sworn of some Ecclesiasticall Catholick persons as the 39 Articles were in the Protestants new Creed proposed by them to Ministers Pius the 4 th did not only injoyn all Ecclesiasticks Seculars and Regulars to swear to his new Creed but he imposed it upon all Christians as veram fidem Catholicam extra quam nemo salvus esse potest they are the very words of the Bull as the true Catholick Faith without believing of which no man can be saved This is a greater Obligation then an Oath and as much as the Apostles did impose for the reception of the Apostolicall Creed We doe not hold our 39 Articles to be such necessary truths extra quam non est salus without which there is no Salvation nor injoin Ecclesiastick persons to swear unto them but only to subscribe them as theologicall
the politicall Head of the Church It was concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father in so sublime a question concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father in this exigence of affairs being in his voyage in the presence of his Brother and fellow Emperor who was an Arrian and a great persecutor of all those who held the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father whose Subjects these Bishops were as they found to their cost presently after his return from accompanying of his Brother some part of his way what more prudent or more plausible answer could so moderate a Prince have given then that he did give Though we give to Sovereign Princes within their own Dominions a Legislative power in Ecclesiasticall causes yet not without good advise especially in such high points of Faith as that was and who are more fit Counselors for Princes in such cases then Synods and Bishops The same method is observed by us at this day The Synod contrives fit Articles and Canons and the King confirms them and makes them Lawes But did Valentinian nothing himself in such cases but leave all to Priests No. He himself confirmed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father quam etiam nostra celsitudo passim praedicari mandavit Which our Highnesse hath commanded to be Preached every where This very Valentinian was one of the Authors of that famous Law to represse the covetousnesse of the Clergy which Saint Ambrose and Saint Hierome doe so much complain of not against the Emperors who made the Law but against the Clergy who deserved it In the Code we finde Ecclesiasticall Lawes made by this very Valentinian as that to Florianus That a Bishop rebaptizing one who had been formerly Baptized out of ignorance of the Law should be deprived of his Bishoprick It was this very Valentinian of whom Theodorit speaketh that in Occidentem profectus c. Going into the West he furnished that Region with excellent Lawes and did begin with the Preaching of true Piety He convocated the Bishops and commanded them in the place of Auxentius an Arrian to chuse an Orthodox Bishop for the See of Millaine and after some debates they did chuse Saint Ambrose Some may say if it was his right why did he not chuse him himself I answer that the Synod of Bishops did desire him to chuse one as knowing his right and when Saint Ambrose was chosen and refused for a time jubet Ambrosium extemplo initiari mysteriis Episcopum ordinari The Emperor commanded him forthwith to be initiated in the holy Mysteries and to be ordeined Bishop Neither was this the case of Constantine or Theodosius or Valentinian alone Socrates writes more generally That from Constantines time when the Emperors became Christians Ecclesiasticall affaires seemed to depend upon their beck His fifth witnesse is Basilius Basilius Emperor in the seventh Synod speaketh thus to the Laity He is mistaken Basilius was no Emperor in the time of the seventh Synod but Constantine and Irene but it is true that in the time of the 8 th Synod Basilius was Emperor and made a Speech to the Laity The case is this one Bardas a Patrician and Michael the former Emperor by their unseasonable and preposterous intermedling in Ecclesiastieall businesses had brought the Orientall Church into great dangers whereupon Basilius then Emperor useth these words Nullo modo nobis licet c. It is no way lawfull for us Laymen to move Speech of Ecclesiasticall causes nor at all to resist the whole Church and oppose an universall Synod For the searching and inquisition into these things belongs to Patriarchs Bishops and Priests Basilius was in the right It is not lawfull for Laymen to treat of Ecclesiasticall causes in generall Councels as Bâ—shops doe that is to say to have decisive Voices or to meddle above their capacities much lesse ought they frowardly to oppose general Councels or to vie reason for reason with them The Bishops form of subscription was this Ego B. definiens subscripsâ— I B. have subscribed to this as my definition The Laymans form was this Ego L. consentiens subscripsâ— I L. have subscribed to this as giving my consent to it There is a great difference between defining and consenting But as Kings are never minors because they are presumed to hâ—ve a wise Councel so they are never to be considered as ignorant Lay-men who have a learned Councel of Ecclesiasticall persons to direct them All this while he troubles himself to no purpose about the deliberative part but medleth not at all with the authoritative part which only is in question between us Sovereign Princes by their Royall Authority have power to incorporate the Decrees of Councels into the Lawes of the Land and to subject the violaters of them to civill punishments His sixth witnesse is Charles the great Charles the great in Crantzius professeth that he gave the Church of Breme to Saint Wilihaâ—e by command of the high Bishop and universall Pope Adrian c. by which words we see by whose Authority he meddled in Spirituall matters It is a great degree of confidence to dare to cite Charles the great to prove that it is not lawfull for Sovereign Princes to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires To cite him who convocated Councels yeerly by his own Authority and reformed the Church Who sate himself in Synods not only as a hearer but as a Judg that is with the advise of his Ecclesiasticall Councel Auditor Arbiter adfui and made Ecclesiasticall Decrees in his own name discernimus Deo donante decrevimus Who made himself Judg of the Popes themselves who disposed by his own Authority not only of the Bishoprick of Breme which was then a place but newly conquered by himself and newly converted but of all the Bishopricks throughout the Empire not excepting the Bishoprick of Rome it self To whom this very Pope Adrian whom he citeth with the Clergy and People of Rome did solemnly resigne release and acquit for ever all their claim right and interest in the election of succeeding Popes The case cited was this Saint Willehade was an Englishman sent by the English King and Bishops to convert those Countries to the Christian Faith Charles the great who had newly conquered those parts and desired much their conversion finding the great merits of this Wilehade remunerare se digno constiâ—uit Episcopatu He resolved to bestow a good Bishoprick upon him And therefore he called him forth and commanded him to be consecrated Bishop of Breme The case is as cleer in the history as the noon day Charles the great founded and erected Bishopricks at his pleasure Episcopalem constituimus Cathedram and gave them such priviledges as he thought fit extat privilegium eidem Ecclesiae a memorato Rege Collatum He endowed the Churches and commanded the inhabitants to pay their Tythes and other duties to them hoc nostro Majestaâ—is
of indulgences whom the Pope of that time rebuked severely Nor Henry the eighth but the excommunication of Clement the seventh That of Luther is altogether without the compass of the question between him and me which concerneth only the Church of England I shall only make bold to tell him that whensoever it comes to be examined it will be found that Luther had many other causes of what he did then the abuse of some Preachers of Indulgences If he will not give me credit let him cousult the hundred grievances of the German Nation That the Pope rebuked those Preachers of Indulgences severely is more then I have read only this I have read that Carolus Militius did so chide Tecelius the Popes Pardoner about it that shortly after he died of grief Concerning Henry the eighth the excommunication of Clement the seventh was so far from being a totall adequate cause of his separation that it was no more but a single occasion The originall priviledges of the British Churches the ancient liberties and immunities of the English Church daily invaded by the Court of Rome the usurpation of the just Rites and Flowers of his own Crown the otherwise remediles oppression of his Subjâ—â—ts and the examples of his noble Predecessors were the chief grounds of his proceedings against the Court of Rome He asketh could not Henry the eighth have been saved though he was excommunicate yes why not Justice looseth unjust bonds But I see that this question is grounded upon a double dangerous error First that all reformation of our selves is a sinfull separation from other Churches Whereas he himself confesseth that it is sometimes vertuous and necessary Nay every reformation of our selves is so far from being a sinfull separation from others that it is no separation at all except it be joyned with censuring and condemning of others The second error intimated in this question is this that so long as there is possibility of salvation in any Church it is not lawfull or at least not necessary to separate from the abuses and corruptions thereof A Church may continue a true particular Church and bring forth Children to God and yet out of invincible ignorance maintain materiall Heresie and require the profession of that Heresie as a condition of communicating with her in which case it is lawfull nay necessary after conviction to separate from her errors Those errors and corruptions are pardonable by the goodness of God to them who erre out of invincible ignorance which are not pardonable in like manner to them who sinne contrary to the light of their own conscience He addeth that this excommunication was not the fault of the Roman Church which neither caused it nor approved it Yea saith he divers of them disliked it both then and since not as unjust but as imprudent and some have declared themselves positively that a Prince and a multitude are not to be excommunicated It were to be wished for the good of both parties that all men were so moderate To his argument I give two answers First as the Church of Rome did not approve the excommunication of Henry the eighth So neither did Henry the eighth separate himself from the Cchurch of Rome but only from the Pope and Court of Rome Secondly what are we the better that some in the Roman Church are moderate so long as they have no power to help us or hinder the acts of the Roman Court They teach that a Prince or a multitude are not to be excommunicated But in the mean time the Court of Rome doth excommunicate both Princes and multitudes and whole Kingdomes and give them away to strangers Whereof there are few Kingdomes or Republicks in Europe that have not been sensible more or less and particularly England hath felt by wofull experience in sundry ages Clement the seventh excommunicated King Henry but Paul the third both excommunicated and interdicted him and the whole Kingdome and this was the first separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome and the originall of the Schism wherin the Church of England was meerly passive So the Court of Rome was the first cause of the Schism We are come now to my first argument to prove the Court of Rome to be causually schismaticall My proposition is this whatsoever doth leave its proper place in the body either naturall or politicall or ecclesiasticall to usurp the Office of the Head or to usurpe an higher place in the body then belongs unto it is the cause of disorder disturbance confusion and Schism among the Members my assumption is this but the vertuall Church of Rome that is the Pope wiâ—h his Court being but a coordinate Member of the Catholick Church doth seek to usurpe the Office of the Head being but a Branch doth châ—llenge to himself the place of the Root being but a Stone in the building will needles be an absolute Foundation for all persons places and times being but an eminent Servant in the Familie takes upon him to be the Master To the proposition he taketh no exception And to the assumption he confesseth that the Church of Rome in right of the Pope doth seek to be Mistriss of all other Churches and an externall subordinate foundation of all Christians in all times and places which is no more then is conteined in the new Creed of Pius the fourth I acknowledg the Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistriss of all Churches And I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome as to the Vicar of Iesus Christ. But all this he justifieth to be due to the Pope and included in the Supremacy of his Pastorall Office But he saith that it is not the Doctrine of the universal Roman Church that the Pope is the root of all spiritual Iurisdiction Though it be not the Doctrine of the whole Roman Church yet it is the Doctrine of their principall Writers at this day It is that which the Popes and their Courtiers doe challenge and we have seldome seen them fail first or last to get that setled which they desired The Pope hath more Benefices to bestow then a Councell If the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians then Linus and Cletus and Clemens were the foundations of St. Iohn who was one of the twelve foundations laid immediately by Christ How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians when they doe not agree among themselves that the Chair of St. Peter is annexed to the See of Rome by divine right How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians at all times when there was a time that there were Christians and no Bishop or Church at Rome when it happens many times as in this present vacancy that there is no Bishop at Rome St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome then there was a time when Antioch was the Mistriss and foundation of all
Latins Hereticks and Schismaticks and principally upon this ground of the Popes claim of a spiritual Monarchy And that Gerson apprehended their words in this sense it may appear by the context His position is this that men ought not generally to be bound by the positive determinations of Popes to hold and beleeve one and the same forme of government in things that do not immediately concerne the truth of our Faith and the Gospel From thence he proceedeth to set down some different Customes of the Greek Latine Churches both which he doth justifie citing S. Austin to proove that in all such things the custome of the country is to be observed And among the rest of the differences this was one that the Greek Church paid not such Subsidies and Duties as the Gallicane Church did It seemeth that the Pope would have exacted them and that thereupon the Grecians did separate from him using this free expression potentiam tuam recognoscimus avaritiam tuam implere non possumus vivite per vos We know thy might we are not able to satisfie thy covetousness live by your selves And from thence the aforesaid author draweth this conclusion that per hanc consider ationem bene captam c. upon this consideration they might proceed to the reformation of the French Church and the liberties thereof notwithstanding the contradiction which perhaps some of the Court of Rome would make There is not one word or syllable herein that maketh against me but there is both the practise of the Greek Church the opinions of Gerson for the justification of our Reformation and Seperation from the Court of Rome FINIS Sect. 1. Three Essentials of a true Church Great difference between a true Church and a perfect Church Actuall want of essentials not conclusive to God Ch 8. Sect. 3. Particular Rites Formes Opinions no Essentials Schism is not always about esentials Schism is not a greater sin than Idolatry 1. Cor. 10.10.21 Aust. l. 1. de bapt c. 8. Opt l. 1. Aust. Ep. 48. ibidem 1 Tivi 2.17 There may be just cause of separation no just cause of Schâ—sm C. 2. S 6 Particular Churches may give just cause of separation C. 2 Sect. 4. Pref p. 20. Rom. 3.8 Inf. unmask ch 7. sect 112 p. 534. Lib. 2. cont ep Parmen e. 11. Sect. 2. Proâ—â—stans have forsaken no ancient Churches in Sacraments 1. Cor. 19 Math. 26.27 Sect. 3. The true cause of the separation of some Protestants Psal. 19. Essences of things are indivisible destroied by addition as well as subtraction How the Church of Rome is and is not a true Church 1 Cor. 13.12 Iohn 4.22 Eph. 5.26 We have not left the Roman Church in essentialls Con. eph p. 2. Act 6 c 7. Aust ep 118. Nor differ in substance from the Roman Church Aust y. 1. de hapt c. 8. It is not lawfull or prudent to leave the English Church and adhere to the Roman for fear of Schism The present Church of Rome departed out of the ancient Church of Rome Sect. 4. 1 Cor. 13.9 12. Iam. 2.1 To communicate with Schismaticks is not alwaies Schism Sozâ—m l 4 â— 19 The Church of England doth not communicate with Schismaticks 1 Cor. 1.2 11. c. 15 12. Rev 2.14 15.20 Sect. 1. Objections against the Church of England in point of Schisme are colourable not forcible Authors ought to be cited fully and faithfully Protestants conâ—esse no separation from the universall Church I hil c. 3 p. 132. c. 1 s. 1. Nor from the Roman but only in her errors 1. Pâ—t 4. 8. Phil 3 15. Sect. 5. Not the separation but the cause makes the Schism It is necessary to Salvation to forsake known errours C. 9. Sect. 5 Our reformation no separation 2 Gal 9. Aâ—t 30. Lawfull to communicate with the Eastern Churches Calv. epâ—st 141. Ratio ordinis discipline Fratrum Bohemo rum ibid. Calvin no enemy to Episcopacy Epist. ad Mart. Schaling Epl. ad Reg. Polo mae Calv. ep Impres Gen. an 1570. pag. 340. Ep. ad R. Polon 4 Inst. c. 18. sect 18. Doctor Potter cleared Ch. 9. Sect. 5. Ibid Sect. 2. p. 49. â—el l 2. de Eccl Mâ—l c 6. Aust de Veâ— Reâ— c. 6. Ibid. And Master Chillingwoâ—â—h p 245. p. 312. p. 191. 6.5 p. 273. Teâ—t L. 4 Cont. Don c. 23. c. 5. P. 302. As great differences among the Romanists as between them and the Eastern Churches or us C. 1. S. 13. Sect. 2. c. 2. s. 3. Whâ—thâ—r all those be Schismaticks who want Bishops The Romanists no fit persons to object Schism to Protestants c 2. s 6. 5. c. 2. s. 8. The Church of England had better grounds than personall faults of Popes Inf. c. 7 s Sect. 1. P. 8. P. 12. P. 16. All Schisme is not in essentials Bar. Annal an 878. Antimachâ—aveil in â—â—ist ad Lect. Errours in faith obtruded justifie a separation Sect. 2. Meâ—â—rall Schâ—sm 1 Iohn 3. 15. Rom 2 29. Sect. 3. Communion in all points of faith not necessary alwayes Sacraments purely and corruptly administred the same Sacraments Sect. 4. Schismaticks in part doe stâ—ll remain in the Catholick Church Aâ—â—t l. 1. dâ— bapt cont Donâ—istas Idemo 10 Aug. ep 48. R. C. his confession Sect. 5. The Britannick Churches never judged Schismaticks Sect. 6. What is the true Catholick Church Inâ—erest makes Catholickâ— with the Court of Rome Thâ—m a Iesu. cited by Doctor Field l. 3 c. 1. 〈◊〉 ibid. Babing upon Numbers c 7. Cam Annal Elis. An. 1560. Sect. 7. The Church of Rome is materially Idolatrous 1 Cor. 12.16 Bell l. 4. â—e Sac. Euch. c. 29 Speciall Faith is no Article of our Creed Rom. 8 33 Mark 16.16 Papists can pretend to no other Sacrifice then Protestants Bell l 1. de Mâ—sâ— c. 25. Sect. 8. 4 Waies to incurre hereticall pravity Bell. de Eccles. milit l. 3. c. 15. The Power of general Councâ—ls The Popes câ—nfirmation addes noâ—hing to general Councels Platina Acquiescence to the decrees of a generall Councell is necessary 1 Cor 9. Bell de Ro. pont c. 4. c. 2. Sect. 9. Mixt ordination The English Church lawfully established Not lawfully suppressed The English Church nor deaâ— But under persecution Sect. 10. â— 4. cont Cresion c. 61. Sect. 1. Protestants not Authors of the Schism Hiâ—t Conc. Trid an 1538. Sect. 2. The Parliament not compelled Camd. An. Eliz. anno 1559. Bishop Gardiner Speed in Hen. 8. c. 21 n. 1 c 5. De vera obâ—dientia in fine Archbishop Cranmer Speed Baker c. in Henr. 8. Image of both Churches second edition pag. 413. Sand de Schism pag 115. Sacrificio missae intersuit quotidie dum regnabat Henricus Crumwell Barnes Speed l. 9. c. 21. L 1. Cont. Parm. Papists are the right Heirs of the Donâ—rists not Protestants Opt. l 1. Cont. Par. inâ—initio Opt. l. 2. Cont. Parm. in initio Psal. 2. Roman Catholâ—cks sinnâ—d not against conscience in their sâ—paration Henry the eight no Protestant â—ul
and near establishâ—ng in the Roman Church We have renounced their Patriarchall power over us because they never exercised it in Britain for the fiâ—st six hundred years nor could exercise it in after ages without manifest usurpation by reason of the Canon of the Oecumenicall Councell of Ephesus Yea because they themselves waved it and implicitely quitted it presently after the six hundreth year Disuse in law forfeits an office as well as abuse But we have not separated from the Pope or Papacy as they were regulated by the Canons of the Fathers We look upon their universal Roman Church as an upstart innovation and a contradiction in adjecto We finde no footsteps of any such thing throughout the primitive times Indeed the Bishops of Rome have somtimes been called Oecumenicall Bishops so have the other Patriarchs for their universal care and presidency in general Councels who never pretended to any such universality of power But for all ancient Churches Grecian Armenian Ethiopian c. none excluded not the Roman it self we are so farre from forsaking them that we make the Scriptures interpreted by their joint beleef and practice to be the rule of our reformation And wherin their Successors have not swerved from the examples of their Predecessors we maintain a strict Communion with them Only in Rites and Ceremonies and such indifferent things we use the the liberty of a free Church to chuse out such as are most proper for our selves and most conducible to those ends for which they were first instituted that is to be advancements of order modesty decency gravity in the service of God to be adjuments to attention and devotion furtherances of edification helpes of memory exercises of Faith the the leaves that preserve the fruit the shâ—ll that preserves the kernell of Religion from contempt And all this with due moderation so as neither to render Religion sordid and sluttish nor yet light and garish but comely and venerable Lastly for communion in Sacraments we have forsaken no Sacraments either instituted by Christ or received by the primitive Christians We refuse no Communion with any catholick Christians at this day and particularly with those ancient Churches which he mentions though we may be and have been misrepresented one unto another yea though the Sacraments may be administred in some of them not without manifest imperfection whilst sinfull duties are not obtruded upon us as conditions of communion Under this caution we still retein coÌ„munion in Sacraments with Roman Catholicks If any person be baptized or admitted into holy Orders in their Church we baptize them not we ordain them not again Wherein then have we forsaken the Communion of the Roman Church in Sacraments not in their ancient Communion of genuine Sacraments but in their septinary number and suppositious Sacraments which yet we retein for the most part as usefull and religious Rites but not under the notion of Sacraments not in their Sacraments but in their abuses and sinfull injunctions in the use of the Sacrament As their administration of them in a tongue unknown where the people cannot say Amen to the prayers and thanksgivings of the Church contrary to Saint Paul As their deteining the Cup from the Laity contrary to the institution of Christ drink ye all of this that is not all the Apostles only for the Apostles did not consecrate in the presence of Christ and according to the doctrine of their Schools and practise of their Church as to the participation of the Sacrament at that time were but in the condition of Laymen As their injunction to all Communicants to adore not only Christ in the use of the Sacrament to which we doe readily assent but to adore the Sacrament it self And lastly as their double matter and form in the ordination of a Priest never known in the Church for above a thousand years after Christ. These and such like abuses were the only things which we did forsake so as I may truly say non tellus Cymbam tellurem Cymba reliquit It was not we that did forsake them in the Communion of their Sacraments but it was their Sacraments that did forsake us And yet we doe not censure them for these innovations in the use of the Sacraments or the like nor thrust them out of the communion of the Catholick Church but provide for our selves advise them as Brethren and so leave them to stand or fall to their own Master So on our parts there is a reformation but no separation His third point is that Protestants vary in giving the pretended just cause of their separation from the Roman Church For at the first their only cause was the abuse of some that preached Indulgences Since some others give the adoration of the blessed Sacrament or communion in one kind others give the Oath made by Pius the 4 th which they call a new creed others other causes Which variety is a certain sign of their uncertainty of any true just cause of their separation That the Pardoners and Preachers of Indulgences and the envy of other Orders and the passionate heat of the Court of Rome tange montes fumigabunt touch the high mountains and they will smoak did contribute much to the breach of this part of Christendome is confâ—ssedly true But it is not only the abuse of some Preachers of Indulgences but much more the abuse of Indulgences themselves which we complain of that a treasury should be composed of the blood of Christ and the sufferings and supererogatory works of the Saints to be disposed by the Pope for money What is this but to mingle Heaven and Earth together the imperfect works of man with the sacrified blood of Christ Neither was it the Doctrine and abuse of Indulgences alone but the injunction to adore the Sacrament also and Communion in one kind and the new Creed of Pius the 4 th or the new Articles since comprised in that Creed and the Monarchy of the Pope by divine right and sundry other abuses and innovations all put together which gave just cause to some Protestants to separate themselves so far as they were active in the separation But we in England were first chased away by the Popes Buls If these abuses were perhaps not discovered or at least not pleaded all at once what wonder is it Dies diei eructat verbum nox nocti indicat scientiam day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night sheweth knowledge His fourth point which he saith is much to be noted is reduced by himself to a Syllogism Whosoever separate themselves in substance that is in essentials from the substance of a Catholick and true Church in substance are true Schismaticks But Protestants have separated themselves in substance from the Roman Church which is a Catholick and true Church in substance therefore Prostants are true Schismaticks His proposition is proved by him because the substances of things doe consist in indivisibili and the changing
Church from Rome Yet something he saith upon the by which is to be examined first That they who made the King head of the Church were so far from being Zelots of the Roman Religion that they were not then of the Roman Religion but Schismaticks and Hereticks outwardly whatsoever they were inwardly What a change is here Even now when they opposed the Reformation they were the best Bishops and now when they oppose the Popes Supremacy they are Schismaticks and Hereticks Let them be what they were or whatsoever he would have them to be certainly they were no Protestants And if they were not Roman Catholicks they were of no Christian Communion They professed to live Roman Catholicks and they died Roman Catholicks The six bloody Articles contrived by them and executed by them in the reign of King Henry and the Bonefires which they made of poor Protestants in the dayes of Queen Mary doe demonstrate both that they were no Protestants and that they were Zelots of the Roman Religion But saith he the essence of the Roman Religion doth consist in the primacy of the Pope If it be so then whereas the Christian Religion hath twelve Articles the Roman Religion hath but one Article and that none of the twelve namely the supremacy of the Pope But this needs makes no difference between us For they denyed not the Popes Primacy that is of order but his Supremacy of power Neither is his Supremacy either the essence or so essentiall a part of the Roman Catholick Beleef but that many of the Roman Catholick Communion have denyed it of old as the Councells of Constance and Basile and many doe deny it and more doubt of it at this day But let that be as it will In all other Controversies they were pure Romanists and the denomination is from the greater part Certainly they were no Protestants which is enough for my purpose He tels us from Bishop Gardiner that the Parliament was with much cruelty constrained to abolish the Primacy he means Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome A likely thing indeed that a whole Parliament and among them above fifty Bishops and Abbets should be forced without any noise against their conscience to forswear themselves to deny the essence of their faith and to use his own words to turn Schismaticks and Hereticks How many of them lost their lives first Not one not one changed his Soil not one suffered imprisonment about it For howsoever the matter hath been misconstrued by some of our Historiographeâ—s Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moore were imprisoned before this Act of the Supremacy was made for denying the Kings Mariage and opposing a former Act of Parliament touching the succession of his Children to the Crown Thus much is confessed by Sanders in his Book de Schismate p. 73. b. concerning Fisher and p. 81. concerning Sir Thomas Moor. Quae Lex post Mori apprehensionem constituta erat The Law of Supremacy was made after the apprehension of Sir Thomas Moore Of this much cruelty I doe not finde so much as a threatning word or a footstep except the fear of a Premunire And is it credible that the whole representative of the Church and Kingdome should value their Goods above their Souls Or that two successive Synods and both our Universities nemine dissentiente should be so easily constrained But who constrained the most learned of the Bishopâ— and the greatest Divines in the Kingdome to tell the King that it was his right to publish Catechisms or Institutions and other Books and to preach Sermons at St. Pauls Cross and elswhere for maintenance of the Kings Supremacy These Acts were unconstrained Heare the Testimony of Queen Eizabeth given in their life time to their faces before the most eminent Ambassadors of the greatest Persons in the World when Bishop Gardiner might have contradicted it if he could When the Emperour and other Roman Catholick Princes interceded with her for the displaced Bishops she returned this answer That they did now obstinately reject that Doctrine which most part of themselves under Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth had of their own accord with heart and hand publickly in their Sermons and Writings taught unto others when they themselves were not private Persons but publick Magistrates The charge is so particular that it leaves no place for any answer First of their own accord Secondly not only under Henry the eighth but Edward the sixth Thirdly when they themselves were publick Magistrates Fourthly with heart and hand not only in their Sermons but also in their printed Writings Against Subscriptions and printed Writings there can be no defence But upon whose credit is this constraint charged upon King Henry upon Bishop Gardiners In good time he produceth a Witness in his own cause He had an hard heart of his own if he would not have favored himself and helped to conceal his own shame after King Henry was dead Mortui non mordent Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that writ the book de vera obedientia to justifie the Kings Supremacy Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that tels us That no forrein Bishop hath authority among us that all sorts of people are agreed with us upon this point with most steadfast consent that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome Is not this he that had so great an hand in framing the oath of Supremacy and in all the great transactions in the later dayes of King Henry was not he one of them who tickled the Kings eares with Sermons against the Popes Supremacy who was a Contriver of the six bloody Articles against the Protestants and was able by his power with the King to bring the great Favorite of those times to the Scaffold for Heresie and Treason To conclude if any thing did constrain him it was either the Bishoprick of London or Winchester or which I doe the rather beleeve out of charity the very power of conscience So much himself confesseth in the conclusion of his book de vera obedientia where he proposeth this objection against himself that as a Bishop he had sworn to maintain the Supremacy of the Pope To which he answers That what was holily sworn is more holily omitted then to make an oath the bond of iniquity He confesseth himself to have been married to the Church of Rome bona fide as to his second Wife but after the return of his first Wife that is the Truth to which he was espoused in his Baptisme being convicted with undenyable evidence he was necessitated out of conscience to forsake the Church of Rome in this particular question of Supremacy and to adhere to his first Wife the Truth and after her to his Prince the supreme head of the English Church upon earth His next attempt is to prove that the Protestants were the Authors of the separation from Rome And he names three Cranmer Crumwell and Barnes He
might even as well say that two or three common Soldiers of the Carthaginian Army and perhaps not one of them at the fight were the Authors of the Roman overthrow at Cannae It was the Universities that approved the separation unanimously It was the Synods that directed the separation It was the King that established the separation It was the Parliament that confirmed the separation How could two or three Privados without Negromancy have such an efficatious influence upon the Universities and Synods and Parliaments and the King himself Yet they might have an hand in it no nor so much as a little finger As much as the Flie that sate upon the Cart-wheel had in raising of the dust The two Houses of Parliament alone did consist of above 600. of the most able and eminent persons in the Kingdome what had these three been able to doe among them supposing they had been then Protestants and of the House Even as much as three drops of hony in a great vessell of vinegar or three drops of vinegar in a great vessell of hony But let us see what it is which he objects against Cranmer and the rest That Cranmer whom I will not deny to have been a friend and favourer of Protestants advised that the King should seek no more to the Court of Rome And that bidding adieu to the Court of Rome he should consult with the most learned in the Universities of Europe at home and abroad There was no hurt in all this There could be no suspicion that the most learned in all the Universities of Europe should be enemies to the just rights of the Roman Court But upon this saith he it was by Commission disputed by the Divines in both Universities And so he concludes triumphantly Behold Cranmer the first author of secession from the Pope I answer That this secession was no secession of the Church of England nor this disputation any disputation concerning the jurisdiction of the Roman Court over the English Church but only concerning a particular processe there depending between King Henâ—y and Queen Katherine about the validity or invalidity of their marriage and the Popes dispensation which Cranmer maintained to be determinable by Divine law not by Canon law The truth is this Doctor Stephens and Doctor Fox two great Ministers of King Henry and Doctor Cranmer chanced to meet without any designe at Waltham where discourse being offered concerning this processe Cranmer freely declared his judgement that the marriage of a Brother with his Brothers Wife was unlawfull by the Law of God and that the Pope could not dispense with it And that it was more expedient and more proper to seek to have this cause determined by the best Divines and Universities of Europe then by the dilatory proceeding of the Roman Court This was related to the King The King sent for Cranmer He offered freely to justifie it before the Pope And to demonstrate both that this was no separation from Rome and that Cranmer himself was no Protestant at that time it is acknowledged by all our Historiographers that after this Cranmer with others was sent as an Ambassador or Envoy to Rome and returned home in the Popes good Grace not without a mark of his favour being made his penitentiary Likewise saith another Cranmer that unworthy Archbishop of Canterbury was his the Earl of Hartfords right hand and chief assistant in the work although but a few moneths before he was of King Harries Religion yea a great Patron and Prosecutor of the six Articles That is as much as to say no friend no favourer of Protestants So this victorious argument failes on both sides Some other places he citeth concerning Cranmer That he freed the Kings conscience from the yoke of Papall dominion that is to say in that processe That by his counsell destruction was provided divinely to the Court of Rome that is occasionally and by the just disposition of Almighty God That the King was brought by Cranmers singular virtue to defend the cause of the Gospell that is in that particular case that the Pope cannot dispense contrary to the Law of God And lastly That the Papall power being discovered by King Henries authority and Cranmers did easily fall down I much doubt if I had the Book whether I should finde these testimonies such as they are cited Howsoever it may be true distinguendo tempora and referendo singula singulis They could not be spoken of the first separation when Cranmer had no more authority then a private Doctor but of the following times King Henry suppressed the Papall tyranny in England by his Legislative Power and Cranmer by his discovery of their usurpations and care to see the Lawes executed Against Crumwell he produceth but one testimony That it was generally conceived and truly as never thought That the politick waies for taking away the Popes authority in England and the suppression of Religious Houses were principally devised by Crumwell First this is but an argument from vulgar opinion Secondly when Archbishop Warham and the Synod did first give to King Henry the Supremacy and the Title of Head of the English Church Crumwell was no Protestant he had lately been Cardinall Wolsies Soliciter and was then Master of the Jewel House of no such power to doe any great good or hurt to the Protestants And at his death he professed that he was no Sacramentary and that he died in the Catholick Faith Lord Cherbury in H. 8. anno 1540. Holl. an 32. H. 8. fol. 242. But for the suppression of Religious Houses it is not improbable He might well have learned that way under Cardinall Wolsy when he procured the suppression of fourty Monasteries of good note for the founding of his two Colleges at Oxford and Ipswich In which businesse our historians say the Pope licked his own Fingers to the value of twelve Barrels full of Gold and Silver Lastly for Doctor Barnes poor man he was neither Courtier nor Councelor nor Convocation man nor Parliament man All the grace which ever he received from King Henry was an honourable death for his Religion He said That he and such other wretches as he had made the King a whole King by their Sermons If they did so it was well done The meaning of a whole King is an Head of the Church saith R. C. It may be so but the consequence is naught Perhaps he meant a Soveraign independant King not feudatory to the Pope which he that is is but half a King Not only of old but in later times the Popes did challenge a power Paramount over the Kings of England within their own dominions as appeareth by the Popes Bull sent to Iames the fifth King of Scotland wherein he declareth that he had deprived King Henry of his Kingdome as an Heretick a Schismatick an Adulterer a Murtherer a Sacrilegious person and lastly a Rebell and convict of laesae Majestatis for that he had risen
Popes but for many of the rest and especially for that which did virtually include them all that is the Legâ—slative power in ecclesiasticall causes wherein the whole body of the Kingdome did claim a neerer interest in respect of that receptive Power which they have ever injoyed to admit or not admit such new Laws whereby they were to be governed it had been folly and madness in the Popes to have attempted upon it One doubt still remains How ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction could be said to be derived from the Crown For they might be apt enough in those dayes to use such improper expressions First with the Romanists themselves I distinguish between habituall and actuall Jurisdiction Habituall Jurisdiction is derived only by ordination Actuall Jurisdiction is a right to exercise that habit arising from the lawfull application of the matter or subject In this later the Lay Patron and much more the Soveraign Prince have their respective Interests and concurrence Diocesses and Parishes were not of divine but humane institution And the same persons were born Subjects before they were made Christians The ordinary gives a School master a license or habituall power to teach but it is the Parents of the Children who apply or substract the matter and furnish him with Scholars or afford him a fit subject whereupon to exercise this habituall power Secondly we must also distinguish between the interior and exterior Court between the Court of Conscience and the Court of the Church For in both these Courts the power of the Keies hath place but not in both after the same manner That power which is exercised in the Court of Conscience for binding and loosing of sinnes is soly from Ordination But that power which is exercised in the Court of the Church is partly from the Soveraign Magistrate especially in England where Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction is enlarged and fortified with a coercive power and the bounds thereof have been much dilated by the favour and piety of Christian Princes by whom many causes have been made of Ecclesiasticall cognisance which formerly were not from whom the coercive or compulsory power of summoning the Kings Subjects by processes and citations was derived It is not then the power of the Keies or any part or branch thereof in the exercise of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction even in the exterior Court of the Church which is derived from the Crown But it is coercive and compulsory and coroboratory power it is the application of the matter it is the regulating of the exercise of actuall Ecclesiasticall Jurisdicton in the Court of the Church to prevent the oppressions of their Subjects and to provide for the tranquillity of the Common-wealth which belongs to Sovereign Princes As to his corollary that never any King of England before Henry the eighth did challenge an exemption from all Iurisdiction under Christ it is as gross a mistake as all the rest For neither did Henry the eighth challenge any such exemption in the Court of Conscience Among the six bloody Articles established by himself that of auricular confession was one Nor in the Court of the Church seeing the direct contrary is expressly provided for in the Statute it self The Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being and his Successors shall have power and authority from time to time by their discretions to give grant and dispose by an instrument under the Seal of the said Archbishop unto your Majesty and to your Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm as well all manner of such Licences Dispensations Compositions Faculties Grants Rescripts Delegacies Instruments and all other Writings for causes not being contrary or repugnant to holy Scriptures and Lawes of God as heretofore hatâ— been used and accustomed to be had and obtained by your Highnes or any of your most noble Progenitors or any of yours or their Subjects at the See of Rome So vain a suggestion it is That King Henry the eighth did free himself not only from Papall Authority but also and as well from Episcopall Archiepiscopall and all Spirituall Authority either abroad or in England And his Argument which he presseth so seriously to prove it is as vain That the Head of a Company is under none of that Company The Pope himself is under his Confessor who hath power to binde him or loose him in the Court of Conscience The Master of a Family is under his own Chaplain for the regiment of his Soul and under his Physitian for the government of his Body What should hinder it that a Politicall Head may not be under an Ecclesiasticall Pastor The Kings of England are not only under the forrein Jurisdiction of a generall Councell but also under their Ecclesiasticall Pastors though their own Subjects Only they are exempted from all coercive and compulsory power Let us trie whether he be more fortunate in opposing then he hath been in answering The Kings of England saith he permitted Appeales to Rome in ecclesiasticall causes as is evident in St. Wilfrides case who was never reproved nor disliked for appealing twice to Rome not so but the clear contrary appeareth evidently in Saint Wilfrides case Though he was an Archbishop and if an Appeal had been proper in any case it had been in that case This pretended Appeal was not only much disliked but rejected by two Kings successively by the other Archbishop and by the body of the English Clergy as appeareth by the event For Wilfride had no benefit of the Popes sentences but was forced after all his strugling to quit the two Monasteries which were in question whether he would or not and to sit down with his Archbishoprick which he might allwnies have held peaceably if he would This agrees with his supposed Vision in France that at his return into his Country he should receive the greatest part of his possessions that had been taken from him that is praesulatum Ecclesiae suae his Archbishoprick but not his two Monasteries But this is much more plain by the very words of King Alfride cited by me in the Vindication to which R. C. hath offered no answer That he honored the Popes Nuncios for their grave lives and honorable lookes Here is not a word of their credentiall Letters O how would a Nuncio storm at this and take it as an affront The King told them further That he could not give any assent to their legation So that which R. C. calles permitting was in truth downright dissenting and rejecting The reason followes because it was against reason that a person twice condemned by the whole Councel of the English should be restored upon the Popes Letter Is not this disliking What could the King say more incivillity then to tell the Popes Nuncios that their Masters demands were unreasonable or what could be more to the purpose and to the utter ruin of R. C. his cause then that the Decrees of the pope were impugned not once but twice not by a few
take another Perhaps the Popes in justice might by Gods just disposition be an occasion but it was no ground of the Reformation And if it had yet neither this nor his other exceptions doe concern the cause at all There is a great difference between bonum and bene between a good action and an action well done An action may be good and lawfull in it self and yet the ground of him that acteth it sinister and his manner of proceeding indirect as we see in Iehu's reformation This concerned King Henries person but it concerns not us at all King Henrie protested that it was his conscience they will not beleeve him Queen Katherine accused Cardinall Wolsey as the Author of it she never accused Anne Bolen who was in France when that business began The Bishop of Lincoln was imployed to Oxford Bishop Gardiner and Dr. Fox to Cambridge to see the cause debated Besides our own Universities the Universities of Paris Orleans Angew Burges Bononia Padua Tholouse and I know not how many of the most learned Doctors of that age did all subscribe to the unlawfullness of that Marriage which he calleth lawfull The Bishop of Worcester prosecuted the divorce The Bishops of York Duresme Chester were sent unto Queen Katherine to perswade her to lay aside the title of Queen The Bishops of Canterbury London Winchester Bath Lincoln did give sentence against the Marriage Bishop Bonner made the appeal from the Pope The greatest sticklers were most zealous Roman Catholicks And if wise men were not mistaken that business was long plotted between Rome and France and Cardinall Wolsey to breake the league with the Emperour and to make way for a new Marriage with the Duchess of Alenson sister to the King of France and a stricter league with that Crown But God did take the wife in their own crastiness Yea even Clement the seventh had once given out a Bull privately to declare the Marriage unlawfull and invalid if his Legate Campegius could have brought the King to comply with the Popes desires I will conclude this point with two testimonies the one of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester Quid aliud debuit aut potuit c. What else ought the King or could the King doe then with the full consent of his People and judgment of his Church to be loosed from an unlawfull contract and to enjoy one that was lawfull and allowed and leaving her whom neither Law nor Equity did permit him to hold to apply himselfe to a chaste and lawfull marriage In which cause whereas the sentence of the Word of God alone had been sufficient to which all ought to submit without delay yet his Majestie disdained not to use the censures of the gravest men and most famous Universities The second is the testimonie of two Archbishops two Dukes three Marquesses thirteen Earls five Bishops six and twenty Barons two and twenty Abbats with many Knights and Doctors in their Letter to the Pope Causae ipsius justitia c. The justice of the cause it self being approved every where by the judgments of most learned men determined by the suffrages of most famous Universities being pronounced and defined by English French Italians as every one among them doth excell the rest in learning c. Though he call it a lawfull Marriage yet it is but one Doctors opinion And if it had been lawfull the Pope and the Clergy were more blame worthy then King Henry Secondly he faith he wanted due moderation because he forced the Parliament by fear to consent to his proceedings I have shewed sufficiently that they were not forced by their Letter to the Pope by their Sermons preached at St. Pauls Crosse by their perswasions to the King by their pointed looks to which I may add their Declaration called the Bishops Book signed by two Archbishops and nineteen Bishops Nor doe I remember to have read of any of note that opposed it but two who were prisoners and no Parliament men at that time Sir Thomas More yet when King Henry writ against Luther he advised him to take heed how he advanced the Popes authority too much left he diminished his own And Bishop Fisher who had consented in convocation to the Kings title of the Supreme Head of the English Church quantum per Christi legem licet But because Bishop Gardiner is the only witness whom he produceth for proof of this allegation I will shew him out of Stephen Gardiner himself who was the Tyrant that did compell him Quin potius orbirationem neddeâ—e volui c. I desired rather to give an account to the World what changed my opinion and compelled me to dissent from my former words and deeds That compelled me to speak it in good time which compelleth all men when God thinketh fit the force of truth to which all things at length doe obey Behold the Tyrant not Henry the eight but the force of truth which compelled the Parliament Take one testimonie more out of the same Treatise But I fortified my self so that as if I required the judgment of all my senses I would not submit nor captivate my understanding to the known and evident truth nor take it to be sufficiently proved unless I first heard it with mine eares and smelt it with my nose and see it with mine eyes and felt it with my hands Here was more of obstinacie then tyranny in the case Either Stephen Gardiner did write according to his conscience and then he was not compelled or else he dissembled and then his second testimonie is of no value It is not my judgment but the judgment of the Law it self Semel falsus semper presumitur falsus To the third condition he faith only that Henry the eight had not sufficient authority to reforme first because it was the power of a small part of the Church against the whole I have shewed the contrarie that our Reformation was not made in opposition but in pursuance of the acts of generall Councells neither did our Reformers meddle without their own spheres And secondly because the Papacy is of divine right Yet before he told us that it was doubtfull and very courteously he would put it upon me to prove that the Regiment of the Church by the Pope is of humane institution But I have learned better that the proof rests upon his side both because he maintains an affirmative and because we are in possession It were an hard condition to put me to prove against my conscience that the universall Regency of the Pope is of humane right who doe absolutely deny both his divine right and his humane right His next exception is that it is no sufficient warrant for Princes to meddle in spirituall matters because some Princes have done so If he think the externall Regiment of the Church to be a matter meerly spirituall he is much mistaken I cite not the exorbitant acts of some single
Prince or Princes but a whole succession of Kings with their convocations and Parliaments proceeding according to the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome So he might have spared his instances of Saul and Uzziah But he faith that what King Henry did in such matters was plainly against his own conscience as appeareth by his frequent and earnest desires to be reunited to the Pope It is a bold presumption in him to take upon him to judge of another mans conscience God alone knows the secret turnings and windings of the heart of man Though he had desired a reconciliation with Rome yet charity requires that we should rather judge that he had changed his minde then that he violated his conscience Neither will this uncharitable censure if it were true advantage his cause the black of a bean His conscience might make the reformation sinfull in him but not unlawfull in it self The lawfullness or unlawfullness of the Action within it self depends not upon the conscience of the doer but the merit of the thing done His witnesses are Bishop Gardiner and Nicholas Sanders The former a great Counsellor of King Henry a contriver of the oath a propugner of the Kings Supremacy both in print and in his Sermons and a persecutor of them who opposed it For a Preacher to preach against his own conscience comes neer the sin against the holy Ghost He had reason to say he was constrained both to hide his own shame and to flatter the Pope after his revolt whom he had so much opposed especially in the dayes of Queen Marie Otherwise he had missed the Chancellership of England and it may be had suffered as a Schismatick Yet let us hear what he faith that King Henry had a purpose to resigne the Supremacy when the tumult was in the North And that he was imployed to the Emperor to desire him to be a mediator to the Pope about it All this might have been and yet no intention of reconciliation Great Princes many times look one way and row another And if an overture or an empty pretence will serve to quash a Rebellion or prevent a forrein warre will make no scruple to use it But upon Bishop Gardiners credit in this cause we cannot beleeve it This was one of them who writ that menacing Letter to the Pope just before the reformation that if he did not hear them certe interpretabimur nostri nobis curam esse relictam ut aliunde nobis remedia conquiramus they would certainly interpret it that they were left to themselves to take care of themselves to seeke their remedy from elsewhere This was a faire intimation and they were as good as their words This was the man who writ the book de vera obedientia downright for the Kings Supremacie against the Pope Lastly this is who published to the world that all sorts of People with us were agreed upon this point with most sted fast consent that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome It had been strange indeed that all sorts of People should be unanimous in the point and the King alone goe against his conscience His later witness Nicholas Sanders is just such another whose Book de schismate is brim full of virulent slanders and prodigious fictions against King Henry He feineth that when his death did draw nigh he began to deal privately with some Bishops of the way how he might be reconciled to the See Apostolick Testimony he produceth none but his own Authority They who will not beleeve it may chuse But that which followeth spoileth the credit of his relation That one of the Bishops being doubtfull whether this might not be a trap to catch him answered that the King was wiser then all men that he had cast off the Popes Supremacy by divine inspiration and had nothing now to fear That a King should be laying snares to catch his Bâ—shops apprepinquante hora mortis when the very hour of his death was drawing near and that a Bishop should flatter a dying man so abhominably against his conscience as he makes this to be is not credible But there is a third Author alleged by others who deserved more credit That it was but the coming two dayes short of a Post to Rome which hindred that the reconcilement was not actually made But here is a double mistake first in the time this was in the year 1533. before the separation was made currente Rota Some intimations had been given of what was intended but the Bell was not then rung out Certainly the breach must goe before the reconcilement in order of time Secondly in the Subject this treaty was not about the Jurisdiction of the Court of Rome over the English Church but about the divorce of King Henry and Queen Katherine The words are these That if the Pope would supersede from executing his sentence untill he the King had indifferent Judges who might hear the business he would also supersede of what he was deliberated to doe in withdrawing his obedience from the Roman See The Bishop of Paris procured this proposition from the King and delivered it at Rome It was not accepted The Kings answer came not within the time limited Thereupon the Pope published his Sentence and the Separation followed So this was about the change of a Wife not of Religion before either King Henrys substraction of obedience or the Popes fulmination In the next place he distinguisheth between the Pope and the Papacy acknowledging That it may be lawfull in some cases to substract obedience from the Pope but in no case from the Papacy which he presumeth but doth not prove to be of divine institution whereas Protestants saith he for the faults of some Popes have separated themselves both from Pope Papacy and Roman Church And here again he falls upon his former needless Theme That personall faults are no sufficient ground of a revolt from a good institution If he had been pleased to observe it I took away this distinction before it was made shewing that the personall faults of Popes or their Ministers ought not to reflect upon any but the persons guilty but faulty principles in Doctrine or Discipline doe warrant a more permanent separation even untill they be reformed I doe acknowledge the distinction of Pope Papacy and Church of Rome but I deny that we have separated from any one of them for the faults of another As the Pope may have his proper faults so may the Papacy so may the Church of Rome We have separated our selves from the Church of Rome only in those things wherein she had first separated her self from the ancient Roman Church In all other things we maintain communion with her We are ready to yeeld the Pope all that respect which is due to the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church and whatsoever externall honor the Fathers did think fit to cast upon that See if he
determine causes of Religion The Emperor did not trouble himself much at it But the Pope having created three Spanish Cardinals he forbad them to accept the armes or use the name or habit And not long after published a Reformation of the Clergy conteining twenty three points First of Ordination and Election of Ministers Secondly of the Office of Ecclesiasticall Orders Thirdly of the Office of Deans and Canons Fourthly of Canonicall hours Fifthly of Monasteries Sixtly of Schools and Universities Seventhly of Hospitals Eighthly of the Office of a Preacher Ninthly of the Administration of the Sacraments Tenthly of the Administration of Baptism Eleventhly of the Administration of Confirmation Twelfthly of Ceremonies Thirteenthly of the Masse Fourteenthâ—y of the Administration of Penitence Fifteenthly of the Administration of extreme Unction Sixteenthly of the Administration of Matrimomy Seventeenthly of Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies Eighteenthly of the Discipline of the Clergy and People Nineteenthly of plurality of Benefices Twentithly of the Discipline of the People One and twentithly of Visitations Two and twentithly of Councels Three and twentithly of Excommunication Charles the fifth and the German Dyet did assume to themselves a Legislative power in Ecclesiasticall causes None of our Princes was ever more devoted to Rome then Queen Mary yet when Paul the 4 th revoked Cardinall Poolos Legantine power in England and designed one Petus a Franciscan to come Legate in his place She shut all the Ports of England against all messengers from Rome and commanded all the Briefs and Bulls to be taken from the bearers and delivered unto her So well was she satisfied that no Roman Legate hath any thing to doe in England without the Princes licence But I have brought instances enough untill he be pleased to take notice of them To all which he returns no answer but these generall words Seeing L. D. hath alleged diverse facts of Catholick Princes in disobeying Papall Authority and thence inferreth that they did as much as King Henry who not only disobeyed but denied Papall Authority let us allege both more ancient and greater Emperors who have professed that they had no Authority in Ecclesiasticall causes and avowed Papall Authority After this rate he may survey the whole World in a few minutes Let the Reader judge whether I have not just cause to call upon him for an answer Are they only diverse facts of Catholick Princes By his leave they are both facts and decrees and constitutions and Laws and Canons of the most famous Emperors and Princes of Christendome with their Dyets and Parliaments and Synods and Councels and Universities Or doth it seem to him that they only disobeyed Papall Authority When he reads them over more attentively he will finde that they have not only disobeyed Papall Authority but denied it as he saith Henry the 8 th did in all the principall parts and branches of it which are in controversie between them and us Nay they have not only denied to the Pope that which he cals Papall Authority to Convocate Synods to confirm Synods to make Ecclesiasticall Laws to dispose of Ecclesiasticall preferments to receive the last Appeals in Ecclesiasticall causes but they have exercised it themselves They have disposed of the Papacy they have deposed the Popes they have shut out his Legates they have Appealed from his sentences they have not suffered their Subjects to goe upon his Summons they have caused his Decrees to be torn in pieces most disgracefully and made Edicts and Statutes and pragmaticall sanctions against his usurpations they have regulated the Clergy and reformed the Churches within their Dominions And when they thought fit during their pleasures they have stopped all entercouse with Rome The Kings of Spain suffer no more Appeals from Sicily to the Court of Rome then our Princes from England and exercise all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdction by Delegates which certainly neither they nor other Princes would doe if they did at all believe that the Papacy was an universall Spirituall Monarchy instituted by Christ. But it seemeth that he delighteth more in the use of his sword then of his buckler and in stead of repelling my arguments he busieth himself in making new knots for me to untie He knows well that this is no logicall proceeding And I might justly serve him with the same sauce But I seek only the clear discovery of truth and will pursue his steppes throughout his oppositions The first thing that he objecteth to me is the oath of Supremacy made by King Henry and his Church in which oath saith he are sworn five things First that the King of England is not only Governor but only and supreme Governor Secondly not only in some but in all ecclesiasticall things and causes Thirdly as well in all ecclesiasticall causes as temporall Fourthly that no forrein Prelate hath any spirituall Iurisdiction in England Fifthly all forrein Iurisdiction is renounced This he is pleased to call the first new Creed of the English Protestant Church by which it is become both hereticall and schismaticall Before I give a distinct answer to this objection it will be needfull in the first place to put him in minde of some things which I have formerly demonstrated to him touching this particular which he hath been pleased to pass by in silence First who it was that first presented this Title to King Henry Archbishop Warrham whom Sanders calleth an excellent man and a Popish Convocation Secondly who confirmed this Title unto him Four and twenty Bishops and nine and twenty Abbats in Parliament none dissenting There was not one Protestant among them all Thirdly who were the flatterers of King Henry that preached up his Supremacy and printed books in defence of this Supremacy and set forth Catachismâ—s to instruct the Subjects and teach them what the Supremacy was who contrived and penned this very Oath and were the first that took it themselves and incited all others to take it even Bishop Gardiner Tonstall Heath Bonner Stokesley Thurelby c. all R. C. his Friends the greatest Opposers of the reformation and the roughest Persecuters of Protestants Lastly consider what I cited out of Cardinall Poole That God the Father hath assigned this Office to Christian Emperors that they should act the part of Christ the Son of God And again the Pope as a Priestly Head doth execute the Office of Christ the true Head but we may also truly say that the Emperour doth execute the Office of Christ as a Kingly Head These things being premised to dull the edge of his argument now I proceed to a direct answer and first I charge him with chopping and changing the words of the Oath The words of the Oath are these That the Kings Highness is the only supreme Governor in this Realm But in paraphrasing upon them and pressing them he renders them thus not only Governor but only and supreme Governor There is a vast difference between these two to say the King is the only
Consciences then of Papists in those dayes throughout the whole Kingdome of England In the Citie of London alone we finde an hundred and twenty Pastors of Parish Churches whereof fourty were Doctors in Theologie turned out of their Benefices and homes plundred imprisoned and many of them dead under the burthen of their grievous pressures besides all the numerous Dignitaries Prebends and inferior Clergy men belonging to the Cathedrall Church of St. Paul and the Collegiate Church of St. Peter and their respective Quires I could say more touching your Romish Confessors at that time That they refused the Oath of Supremacy more out of compact then Conscience hoping by their unanimity and for fear of wanting means of ordination to necessitate the State to continue them all But when they see how miserably they were deceived and their Churches filled with such as were returned from banishment of whom they dreamed not conjurationis eos poenituit they repented of their foolish plot And when it was too late multi ad Iudices recurrunt contumaciam agnoscunt ac petunt sibi contra pontificem jurare licere many of them run to the Iudges confessed their obstinacy and desired leave to take the Oath as they had done in King Henries dayes But let the faith of this rest upon the Author To my third Argument he giveth no answer in his Survey but what was taken away in the vindication before it was made The sum of my Argument was this That Court which rebelleth against the highest tribunall of the Church assumeth a sovereign Power over it to it self is schismaticall but the Court of Rome rebelleth against the supreme Tribunall or Judicatory of the Militant Church that is the Representative Church or a general Councel The Reader will excuse me if I doe sometimes complicate two or three medios terminos together for brevity sake His first exception is That whereas I should prove that the Papacy is the cause of Schism I doe seek to prove that the Papacy is Schism To say the Papacy is Schism is non sense I hope I may have leave to write common sense But I did say and I doe say that the Court of Rome is in Schism or Schismaticall To say it is in Schism and to say it is the cause of Schism is the same thing for it is not the separation but the cause that makes the Schism They who give just cause of separation are Schismaticall and they who take it are innocent Secondly he demandeth how the Papacy as it is now maintained by many could be a sufficient ground of separation to the Protestants especially of separation from the whole Roman Church I answer very well because it was then and two or three ages before that maintained in the same manner or rather an higher degree by the Court of Rome and some others of the Roman Church though not so many as at this day Our separation from the Court of Rome is totall and absolute because we know no legall Subjection which we owe to the Court of Rome But I know no such absolute separation on our parts from the Church of Rome but only a difference from them in their erroneous Opinions and a forbearance to practise some other things which are made by them conditions of their externall Communion wherein we cannot joyn with them with a good conscience The making of their errors to be essentialls and necessary conditions of Catholick Communion makes the breach appear greater then it is That this is clearly the sense of our Church I have shewed out of the thirtieth Canon So he comes to his main answer That to rebell against a complete generall Councell joyned with the Pope as Head thereof is gross Schism But not to resist an incomplete generall Councell without the Pope This answer is sufficiently confuted in the vindication first by the authority of Saint Gregory who makes it to be schismaticall in the Pope to challenge such an universall headship of Power Secondly by the Popes own Laws and by their professions of obedience to the Canons Thirdly by the Appeales made by Princes and Prelates and Universities from the Popes to generall Councells And lastly by the express Decrees of the Councells of Constance and Basile in the point To which I adde that those very Decrees of generall Councells which have been not only not ratified but opposed by the Popes have nevertheless been evermore received and obeyed as Lawes in the Catholick Church for the authority of the Councell As the Decree of the Councell of Chalcedon for equalling the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Rome was protested against by the Popes Legates in the name and on the behalf of their Master and yet was ever held and practised as an authentick Rule by the Catholick Church and reverenced by Saint Gregory as a part of the Gospell Iustinian the Emperor called the fifth generall Councell at which Vigilius the then Pope refused to be present or to give any consent unto it for which his frowardness he was banished by the Emperor This in R. C. his judgement was an incomplete generall Councell Yet in all succeeding ages and by the Popes themselves it was honored and esteemed as a true general Councell I confess a generall Councell was not held complete in the primitive times when such an assembly might be had without the presence of the five Protopatriarchs by themselves or their Deputies But to think that any one of these either the Roman Patriarch or any other had an Headship of Power over the Councell or a negative voice against the Councell is a most groundless fancy whereof we finde not the least footstep in all antiquity And therefore R. C. might well have forborn his comparison of King and Parliament as altogether impertinent The King was confessedly an Head of Power over the Parliament so was not the Pope over a generall Councell The King had evermore a negative voice in Parliament so had the Pope never in a generall Councell When the Parliament had made up their Billes they preferred them alwaies to the King by way of petition but the Bishops in a generall Councell by way of definition Ego A. definiens subscripsi In a generall Councell the President who is no more then a Prolocutor or Speaker in Parliament makes his last address to the body of the Councell in this sort placet aut non placet doth it please you or not But in Parliament after the Members have voted content or not content the last address must be to the King and he is free to say the King will have it or the King will advise If a generall Councell have not the Rites and Priviledges of a generall Councell unless the Pope be present as the Head thereof and concurre with it to what purpose were those questions so canvased in the Western Church whether a generall Councell be above the Pope and whether a generall Councell can depose
to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed For Governement her principle was that Christ had made S. Peter first or chiefe or Prince of his Apostles who was to be the first mover under him in the Churth after his departure out of this world and that the Bishops of Rome as successeours of S. Peter inherited from him this priviledge c. A little after he acknowledgeth that â—he first principle includeth the truth of the second And that there is this manifest evidence for it that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed and that as long as it adhered to that method nothing could be altered in it Before we come to his applicarion of this to the Church of England or his inference from hence in favour of the Church of Rome it will not be amisse to examine his two principles and shew what truth there is in them and how falshood is hidden under the vizard of truth In the first place I desire the Reader to observe with what subtlety this case is proposed that the Church of England agreed with the Church of Rome all the rest of her Communion And again that the Bishop of Rome exercised this power in all those Countries which kept communion with the Church of Rome So seeking to obtrude upon us the Church of Rome with its dependents for the Catholick Church We owe respect to the Church of Rome as an Apostolical Church but we owe not that conformity subjection to it which we owe to the Catholick Church of Christ. Before this pretened seperation the Court of Rome by their temerarious censures had excluded two third parts of the Catholick Church from their Communion and thereby had made themselves Schismaticall The world is greater then the City all these Christian Churches which are excommunicated by the Court of Rome onely because they would never no more then their Ancestours acknowledge themselves subjects to the Bishop of Rome did inherit the Doctrine of saving Faith from their forefathers as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles and have been as faithfull depositaries of it as they And their testimony what this Legacy was is as much to be regarded as the Testimony of the Church of Rome and so much more by how much they are a greater part of the Catholick Church Secondly I observe how he makes two principles the one in doctrine the other in discipline though he confess that the truth of the latter is included in the former and borroweth its evidence from it onely that he might gaine themoreopportunity to shuffle the latter usurpations of the Popes into the ancient discipline of the Church and make these upstart novelties to be a part of that ancient Legacy Frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora It is in vaine to make two rules where oue will serve the turne I do readily admit both his first and his second rule reduced into one in this subsequent forme That those doctrines and that discipline which we inherited from our forefathers as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles ought solely to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed that is substantiall or essential So the Church of England maintaines this rule now as well as they The question onely is who have changed that Doctrine or this Discipline we or they we by substraction or they by addition The case is clear the Apostles contracted this Doctrine into a Summary that is the Creed the primitive Fathers expounded it where it did stand in need of clearer explication The Generall Councell of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his baptismal profession Into this Faith were we baptized unto this Faith do we adhere whereas they have changed enlarged their Creed by the addition of new Articles as is to be seen in the new Creed or Confession of Faith made by Pius the fourth so for Doctrine Then for discipline we professe and avow that discipline which the whole Christian world practised for the first six hundred years all the Eastern Sowthern and Northern Churches untill this day They have changed the beginning of unity into an universality of Jurisdiction and Soveraignty of power above General Councels which the Christian world for the first six hundred years did never know nor the greatest part of it ever acknowledge until this day Let S. Peter be the first or chiefe or in a right sense the Prince of the Apostles or the first mover in the Church all this extends but to a primacy of order the Soveraignty of Ecclesiasticall power was in the Apostolicall Colledge to which a generall Councell now succeedeth It is evident enough whether they or we doe hold our selves better to the legacy of Christ and his Apostles Thirdly whereas he addeth that The Bishops of Rome as successours of S. Peter inherited his priviledges and actually excercised this power in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began as it commeth much short of the truth in one respect for the Popes exercised much more power in those Countries which gave them leave then ever S. Peter pretended unto so it is much more short of that Universall Monarchy which the Pope did then and doth still claime For as I have already said two third parts of the Christian world were not at that time of his Communion but excommunicated by him onely because they would not submit their necks to his yoke And those other Countries which yielded more obedience to him or were not so well able to contest against him yet when they were overmuch pinched and his oppresons and usurpations did grow intolerable did oppose him and make themselves the last judges of their own liberties and grievancies and of the limits of Papall authority and set bounds unto it as I have demonstrated in the â—indication So whereas this refuter doth undertake to state the case clearly he commeth not neer the true question at all which is not whether the Bishop of Rome had any authority in the Catholick Church he had authority in his Diocesse as a Bishop in his Province as a Metropolitan in his Patriarchate as the chief of the five Protopatriarchs and all over as the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church or successour of S. Peter But the true question is what are the right limits and bounds of his authority whether he have a legiâ—lative power over all Christians whether the patronage aud disposition of all Churches doth belong unto him whether he may convocate Synods and exercise Jurisdiction and sell palles pardons and indulgences and send Legates and set up Legantine Courts and impose pensions at his pleasure in all kingdomes without consent of Soveraigne Princes and call all Ecclesiasticall causes to Rome and interdict whole nations and infringe their liberties and customes and excommunicate Printes and
which continue in communion with it are the onely Churches which have true doctrine in vertue of the first principle above mentioned and the right governement in virtue of the second and consequently are the entire Catholick or Vniversall Church of Christians all others by misbelief or Schisme being excluded Our answer is ready that the Church of Rome or the Court of Rome have sophisticated the true doctrine of Faith by their supplementall Articles and erroneous additions contrary to the first principle and have introduced into the Church a tyrannical and unlawfull government contrary to the second principle and are so far from being the entire Catholick Church that by them both they are convicted to have made themselves guilty of supertio n and Schisme And lastly where he saith that my onely way to clear our Church from Schisme is either by disproving the former to be the necessary rule of unity in Faith or the latter the necessary bond of governement he is doubly mistaken First we are the persons accused our plea is negative or not guilty So the proof lieth not upon us but upon him to make good his accusation by proving us Schismaticks Secondly if the proof did rest upon our sides we do not approve ofâ—his adviâ—e It is not we who have altered the Doctrine or Discipline which Christ left to his Church by our substractions but they by their additions There is no doubt but Christs legacy ought to be preserved inviolable but we deny that Christ bequeathed spiritual Monarchy over his Church to S. Peter and that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters heir by Christs ordination And that this was the constant beliefe of the Catholick world at any time This is his province let him either make this good or hold his peace Sect. 2. So his Prologue is ended now we come to his animadversions upon my arguments My first ground was because not Protestants but Roman Catholicks themselves did make the first separation To which his first answer is If it were so how doth that acquit us since continuance in a breach of this nature is as culpable as the beginning Many waies First it is a violent presumption of their guilt and our innocence when their best friends and best able to judge who preached for them and writ for them who acted for them and suffered for them who in all other things were great zeloâ—s of the Roman Religion and persecuted the poor Protestants with fire and Fagot did yet condemn thâ—m and justify this separation Secondly though it doth not alwaies excuse a tâ—to from all guilt and punishment to be misled by others into errour If the blind llead the blind both fall into the ditch yet it doth alwaies excuse a tanto it lesseneth the sin and extenuateth the guilt Persons misled by the example and authority of others are not so cuipable as the first authors and ringleaders in Schisme If this separation be an Errour in Protestants the Roman Catholicks do owe an account to God both for themselves and us did they find cause to turne the Pope out of England as an intruder and usurper and could Protestants who had no relation to Rome imagine that it was their duties to bring him in again Thirdly in this case it doth acquit us not onely a tanto but a toto not onely from such a degree of guilt but from all criminus Schisme so longas we seek carefuly after truth and do not violate the dictates of our Consciences If he will not believe me let himbeleeve S. Austin He that defends not his false opinion with pertinacious animosity having not invented it himself but learned it from his erring parents if he enquire carefully after the truth and be ready to embrace it and to correct his errours when he finds them he is not to be reputed an hereticke If this be true in the case of heresy it is more true in the case of Schisme Thus if it had been a crime in them yer it is none in us but in truth it was neither crime in them nor us but a just and necessary duty Secondly he answereth that it is no sufficient proof that they were no Protestants because they persecuted Protestants For Protestants persecute Protestants Lutherans Calvinists Zwinglians Puritans and Beownists persecute one another VVhat then were VVarham and Heath aud Thureleby Tunscall and Stokesley and Gardiner and Bonner c. all Protestants did Protestants enjoy Arch-Bishopricks and Bishopricks iâ— England and say Masses in those daies will he part so easily with the greatest Patrons and Champions of their Church and opposers of the Reformation If he had wriâ— thus much whilest they were living they would have been very angry with him Yet at the least if they were Protestants let him tell me which of these Sects they were of Lutheranâ— c. But he telleth us that the reouncing of the Pope is the most essentiall part of our reformation and so they had in them the quintessence of a Protestant He is mistaken This part of the reformation was done to our hands it was their reformation not ours But if he will needs have the kingdomes and Churches of England and Ireland to have been all Protestants in Henry the eighths daies onely for renouncing the Popes absolute universall Monarchy I am well contented we shall not lose by the bargain Then the Primitive Church were all Protestants then all the Grecian Russian Armenian Abyssen Christians are Protestants at this day then we want not store of Protestants even in the besome of the Roman Church it self Sect. 3. My second Ground saith he was because in the separation of England from Rome there was no new law made but onely their ancient Liberties vindicated This he is pleased to call notoriously false impudence it self because a law was made in Henry the eighths time and an oath invented by which was given to the King to be head of the Church and to have all the power the Pope did at that time possess in England Is this the language of the Roman Sâ—hooles or doth he think perhaps with his outcriâ—s and clamours as the Turks with their Alla Alla to daunt us and drive us from our cause Christian Reader of what Communion soever thou art be but indifferent and I make thee the Judge where this notorious falshood and impudence doth rest between him and me I acknowledge this was the Title of my fourth Chapter that the King and Kingdom of England in the separation from Rome did make no now law but vindicate their ancient Liberties It seemeth he confureth the Titles without looking into the Chapters did I say they made no new statutes No I cited all the new statutes which they did make and particularly this very statute which he mentioneth here Yet I said they made no new law because it was the law of the land before that statute was made The Customs and liberties of England are the ancient and common Law of the